That’s my point, though. It appears that under at least some interpretations of Florida law, Martin would have been legally justified in hitting him if Martin was afraid because Zimmerman had been following him. At best, the law is vague enough to allow such interpretations.
I’ve never interacted with you before, but I’ve read your posts and formed an opinion of you as a pretty worthless person. I doubt I could link to the specific posts that made me think that, but the association in my mind magellen01 = douche is pretty firm.I suppose it’s possible that there’s a poster on here with a name similar to yours who’s posted a bunch of stupid shit, and I’ve just gotten you confused, and in that case I apologize, but based on this post I’m pretty sure I have you pegged right
I mean, some of this could be true. What I am saying is your standard of review needs to be like an appellate court’s reviewing a jury’s verdict for reasonableness. Before ruling that any criticism of the verdict is baseless, we have to engage in the exercise of “Can we imagine a criticism that is reasonable?”
I also want to point out something further to my last paragraph in the quoted post: The efforts of some of Zimmerman’s supporters to portray Martin as uniquely dangerous because of past conduct that Zimmerman absolutely could not have known and that had no particular bearing on what happened that evening (pictures of marijuana plants on his cell phone, suspension from school from fighting, etc.) seem to bolster this worry.
That is, these remarks, to the critics at least (and to me), come from a place of: Look, he was a young black thug, undoubtedly acting in the way that young black thugs always do.
I know that the people bringing these up purport that they are bringing it up to show his uniquely aggressive tendencies. But to his critics, all that has been shown is that he has done things that lots of teenagers do. To those advocating this evidence, it is ordinary character evidence. To the critics, it is an attempt to play on the prejudices held toward young black men. (The law, by the way, generally disfavors character evidence, precisely because of its prejudicial qualities, which is why I have elsewhere argued that this evidence was not coming in.)
But do ask yourself, when the supporters concoct theories about how Martin was actually a jewelry thief, and how the Miami-Dade school system swept it under the rug in order to protect black kids, what on earth does this have to do with the trial? And what do they seem so invested in proving up a claim that, even in the impossible instance that it was true, has nothing to do with what Zimmerman could have known? And whether these peculiar theories point to any illicit prejudices informing their perception of the actual threat level of the encounter?
Maybe you should consider posting your thoughts more clearly. I read your post exactly as Bricker did. You may think it says something different, but it does’t. Perhaps you need to rethink the phrase “OK with the verdict”. Did you really mean “OK that the law would produce such a verdict”? If so, those are not the same thing.
What I’m saying is here on these forums and most places you look, those are the reasons people seem to be elucidating for having a problem with the jury’s verdict. It feels like to me you want to craft a “better reason” to have a problem with the jury’s verdict because you think there are valid reasons to have a problem with the jury’s verdict and you want to ignore the fact most of the reasons people bring up are invalid.
Okay, well I actually have no problem with what I view as “valid” problems with the jury’s verdict. If you think the jury should have considered the case differently, fine. I disagree vehemently that they should have. But that’s a fine “problem” with the jury. I’m not concerned with shooting down all problems people have with the jury verdict, only the ones based either on assuming evidence that was never presented, denying legal reality or other such common fallacies.
We don’t actually need to go down that rabbit hole. I am not an appellate court nor are you. Instead we are message board posters. I find fault with the arguments I’ve previously specified as lacking merit. That does not mean I think all arguments against the jury verdict lack merit.
Yes, there are lots of despicable people, including racists and the extremely ignorant, who have been vocally supporting George Zimmerman and doing their best to make Martin into a monster. That’s unfortunate.
Under FLA law, TM was entitled to use force against force and to use lethal force “IF” TM reasonably believed he was in imminent (immediate) danger.
However, TM had earlier ran past the area of the “T” and was almost to his daddy fiance house. According to Jeantel’s testimony, anyway. TM’s mom agreed with RJ’s assessment during one of her interviews on CNN. That placed TM some 300 feet away from the “T”.
GZ remained in the area of the “T”. No one has testified or even suggested that GZ followed TM from the “T” area to his daddy fiance house and then followed TM another 300 feet back to the 'T" to start a fight.
Fucking SDMB, even in the Pit I can’t call everyone who disagrees with me an idiot without being called out on my grammar.
Since I am one of the ones being pitted, I’ll chime in. If there was not legal grounds for upholding a second degree murder conviction, the judge would have been duty bound to refuse to instruct on second degree murder if such a request was made. It is my understanding from Bricker that such a request was made. Opinions of Mark O'mara? (Zim Lawyer) - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
It is the duty of the jury to convict Mr. Zimmerman of either murder or manslaughter. His own lawyer admitted he was guilty of manslaughter (admittedly outside the presence of the jury in all likelihood.)
That the jury refused to convict the killer of either is despicable on the part of the jury. There is no question that Zimmerman was the killer and a killer. He was admittedly the killer. The jury didn’t think it was a criminal act. Each juror deserves to be condemned socially for what they did.
As for the OP, I kind of agree. I don’t usually take the position that a jury should be criticized and believe that a jury decision either way is final and move on. I’m not terribly proud of myself for being so disgusted with these jurors. I think their decision is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and they have let a killer off who should have been convicted of murder and/or manslaughter and whose own lawyer agrees (albeit in a slip) a manslaughter case was made out.
What possible relevance could there be to Martin’s mother’s “agreement” of that particular testimony (assuming she even said anything about it)? She wasn’t an eyewitness, earwitness, or familiar with the location. Make sense.
First belly laugh of the weekend.
I believe your claim here is completely true. Based on your contribution to this thread, which is the only impression of you I have, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt it. 
Seriously, dude, you’ve been spewing nothing but Industrial Grade stupidity here.
It’s your interpretation that TM wouldn’t have been entitled to use force based on that evidence. But there’s no guarantee that a prosecutor, judge, or jury won’t interpret it differently. From the article I linked to above
Any law that allows those opposite interpretations ( as well as the others in the article) is too vague
Not your grammar. It sounds like you are objecting that people read what you wrote instead of what you wanted to write. Or something. I’m just suggesting that an alternative to: “I can’t believe you read that into my post is” “Oh, I must’ve not communicated what I thought I did.”
Yes. And the judge, in my view, was wrong as a matter of law. My belief is that she preferred the jury “take the heat.” And she was right: look at the fury that erupted following the acquittal. If the acquittal had come by her decision, as a matter of law instead of a jury verdict, the howls would have been even louder, and all focused on her.
If this sounds impossible, I’ll be happy to cite other cases in which such a motion was made and denied during trial, a conviction ensued, the conviction was appealed, and the appellate court ruled that the motion should have been granted, that no reasonable jury could have convicted on the record.
No. His lawyer’s concession was that there was a legally sufficient case for manslaughter. And I agree. A reasonable jury could have found the elements of manslaughter met, and found that the state failed to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Guess that’s why the jury wanted anonymity.
I notice that you very carefully said that the confrontation started with the first person to commit battery upon the other. Why should we accept that definition? How about assault? I found this definition in Wikipedia:
Martin may well have felt threatened by Zimmerman’s actions. There may not have been sufficient evidence to prove that (and I’m not sure on whom the burden of proof lies), but I think it’s wrong to say that there’s no evidence.
I find it odd that in a thread about the law as written, and the jury’s adherence to the letter of the law, we don’t have a cite for how the law defines “initial aggressor”, only Martin’s opinion that it begins with battery. That phrase exists within the “stand your ground” law. If there’s a solid definition for that, let’s hear it. If not, then it should have been up to the jury to decide.
Really? You’re not sure which side has the burden of proof in a US criminal trial?
Martin is correct, even if we use your definition. There is no evidence telling us who started that assault, either verbal or physical, other than MZ’s own testimony.
OK, I’m still puzzled by how there’s any uncertainty that Zimmerman started the fight. The sequence of events, as I understand it:
1: Zimmerman found Martin suspect, for no discernible legitimate reason, and started following him in his car.
2: Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number to report the situation, and was advised that the police did not need him following Martin.
3: Zimmerman continued following him anyway.
4: Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, armed, to confront Martin.
5: Martin asked him what his problem was.
6: Zimmerman failed to give him any reasonable answer.
7: Martin now sanely and reasonably believed himself to be in danger of gross bodily harm from Zimmerman, and began to defend himself.
So far as I can tell, the only point that even Zimmerman himself disputed was #4: He claims that he didn’t know Martin was there when he got out of his vehicle, and that he was only getting out to confirm his location. But his account in dispute of this point was absurd. First of all, it’s absurd that Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, who had patrolled this area many times, could be unsure of where he was. Second, it’s absurd to think that he didn’t know Martin was close by, given that his stated purpose for confirming his location was to say more precisely where Martin was. Third, it’s absurd that he would get out of his car to confirm his location, as there’s nothing he could do to confirm his location outside of his car that he couldn’t do from inside his car. Fourth, if his purpose wasn’t to confront Martin, then why was he following him to begin with? The police had already stated that they didn’t need him to do that. Fifth, once he did encounter Martin, why did he say that he had no problem, when he clearly (again, by his own testimony) did?
If a jury can’t reject a point of a defendant’s testimony as a lie on the grounds that it’s absurd, then the justice system falls apart completely.
The “initial aggressor” is the is the one who first commits a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another, or threatens to do so, provided that the threat occurs in circumstances where it could be immediately carried out and is accompanied by behavior showing that the threatmaker plans immediately so to carry it out.
If Zimmerman goes up to Martin and says, snidely, “Just what the fuck do you think you’re doing, ya punk?” but makes no threatening gestures along with this and doesn’t brandish his firearm … No assault.
If Zimmerman, however, accompanies the remark by pulling his first back to throw a punch, or grabbing at Martin’s upper arm, or brandishing a firearm … Assault. (Although, except in the case of pointing the gun at him, no fear of serious bodily harm licensing anyone’s use of deadly force).
I’m not sure who has the burden to prove that element, although I have heard that the stand-your-ground law does not require an affirmative defense. I also don’t know the transitive property of “reasonable doubt”. If Martin believed that Zimmerman was a threat to his safety (casting Zimmerman as the initial aggressor), how certain must he have been of that fact before it becomes a reasonable doubt of Zimmerman’s guilt.
No, there is the call to 911, there’s the locations where his truck was parked, where witnesses saw them, where the body was found, and possibly more.
First, that’s not my interpretation. Second, you didn’t provide enough information about the individual cases in order to make a realistic comparison.
People claim that GZ was following TM because GZ got out of his vehicle. But followed him where? Jeantel places TM some 300 feet from the “T” while GZ was still near the “T”. TM would then have had to travel some 300 feet in order to engage with GZ.
Neither TM or GZ did anything illegal until one of them started manhandling the other. A fistfight/beating became more than that. Either TM or GZ could have reasonably believed that their life was in imminent danger.
But what does the evidence suggest? Who had brusing? Who had a broken nose? Who was bleeding? Who was on top? Who forgot to bring his gun to a beating?