Correct. That is what happens when you try to beat up someone who has a gun. Bad idea.
The difference also was predicated on Martin beating Zimmerman up, which was ultimately proven to be a bad idea.
Agreed. The word “authority” is equally susceptible to both meanings.
Agreed as well. The dispatcher had the authority to convey to Zimmerman the preferred procedure – stay in place.
How is that legally relevant?
Perhaps a reasonable person, that is to say, a person who wasn’t a gun-nut yahoo with delusions of authoritah, would have followed the dispatcher’s directives.
Which doesn’t prove anything, but strongly suggests that Zimmerman was a goofy goon looking for an altercation.
If your point is that Zimmerman’s threshold for suspicion was low, then I agree.
Let’s agree that Zimmerman had no good reason to call the police, much less exit his car and follow Martin.
How does that affect the legal standing of Zimmerman? The SYG law clearly lays out that it protects “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be…”
Why should I care what authority the police dispatcher had, at least in your meaning?
It’s important to distinguish the two meanings. A person who disregarded the lawful order of a police officer is “engaged in an unlawful activity.” So the word “authority” becomes very important. Used as if it means the dispatcher could issue a lawful order to Zimmerman, it changes the case.
But if we use it, as you do, to mean “expertise in a particular area,” then who cares? How does it affect the case?
Roughly translated: someone fought a bully and lost when it turned out the bully was too pussy to fight like a man.
How is that legally relevant to Zimmerman’s standing?
Bricker, there are a long list of things that Zimmerman did that, while not illegal in themselves, certainly made the eventual outcome of this situation more likely.
Among other things, he was patrolling as Neighborhood Watch captain with a gun, against the Neighboorhood Watch “guidelines”, and he did not follow the recommendation of the police dispatcher not to follow (and by extension, not to confront) Martin.
Could he not be convicted of homicide involving recklessness or negligence because he consistently did not follow the well-established procedures intended to prevent these situations from occurring?
I am not a lawyer, and it strikes me as something of a dubious argument to begin with, but couldn’t one argue that, by patrolling his neighborhood with a gun and confronting potential criminals in plainclothes, without the training in appropriate use of force, safe tactics, etc. of a genuine police officer, that he was being reckless and making it more likely that a situation like this would arise?
The fact that he was doing this without an uniform or other obvious sign of authority (even a dinky flashing orange light on his car or something) seems especially reckless. A reasonable person should have expected that he would eventually be confused with a criminal himself. By carrying a gun, he was reckless to the possibility that one of these people might totally reasonably attempt to defend themselves, and that he might be forced to use the gun against an innocent person.
It isn’t! The prosecution’s case is foiled! Judge, arrest elucidator for contempt of court!
Fuck Zimmerman’s legal standing.
In my opinion, you’ve laid out the unconscious conviction that animates many people’s gut feelings about this case, and the frustrations that arise as they try to talk about it. They feel, to a moral certainty, that Zimmerman was just acting wrongly, and that should count for something.
But… no.
There are two kinds of recklessness: the kind you get sued for, civilly, and the kind that is so utterly reckless it’s literally a crime.
Zimmerman’s conduct does not rise to that second level. It’s not, as a matter of law, criminally reckless to carry a firearm in a state which permits the carrying of firearms. You have to be able to point to something more.
It’s not criminally reckless to disregard Neighborhood Watch guidelines, either. Nor to patrol the neighborhood without a light.
You can search every single Florida case that has created a conviction for depraved indifference murder, or even manslaughter, and you won’t find anything similar to the conduct here.
I hesitate to carry this conversation on to the next step, because it’s more bad news. But either we’re dedicated to fighting ignorance here or we’re not.
Zimmerman isn’t likely to be civilly liable under the theory you mention either.
Now, this is not normally a true. Under ordinary standards, everything you just said COULD be used in a civil trial to show he was reckless – it would be up to the jury in that lawsuit to determine if his carrying a gun and not having a flashing light was negligent. Normally, then, what you’ve said could allow Martin’s family to recover for wrongful death, even with no criminal conviction.
But we have this law in Florida that says a person who uses force as laid out in the law is immune not only from arrest, but also from civil suit…AND that the the persons suing him will have to pay his court and lawyers fees if they try to sue him anyway.
So… no. I get why it seems that he should be judged reckless, I do. But as a matter of criminal law, no, not based on those facts.
Then what are you talking about?
Your own outrage? I get it. You’re outraged.
You two have waded onto a conversation about the legal aspects of this situation. If you just want to go on record as believing that GZ is a poopyhead, then fine, duly noted. But other people are saying he is actually guilty of a crime.
All questions dissolve before the issue of legality, it is the only question worthy of consideration, and all argument, of any type whatsoever, depend on the precise legality of the matter at hand.
What else are you talking about?
You jump into a discussion about the legal process and then you’re stunned when the discussion turns on legal issues?
Of course, since you choose to conduct discussions by way of sarcastic rejoinders instead of declarations that lay out your position, I suppose it’s possible you thought the discussion wasn’t about the legality of the matter at hand.
So if you’ll just explain to me, with simple words, directly and with clear intent, what you believe the discussion is about, then I can avoid this misunderstanding with you as we continue to participate in this thread.
Simple, clear statement: what is this discussion about?
I think it’s about whether the Sanford Police acted within the law in originally choosing not to charge Zimmerman, and what will happen with Zimmerman’s case now that he has been charged.
What do you think it’s about?
Alternate post (I found an online English-to-elucidator translator; maybe it’ll help):
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Was Zimmerman indicted by the High Court of Morality? Perhaps he’s facing a tough sentence of Scolding? Six years at Heavy Penance, is it, that’s in store for him?
Read the thread title, troll. Your contribution, as always, is limited to drive-by wanking. Except when your stalking certain female posters, of course. Then you’re just a fucking creep.
Not quite fair, Counselor, to blame the police for not charging Zimmerman.
My first guess would be that the prosecutor assigned would have rather nailed his pecker to a tree than take this case, given the wretched travesty of the SYG law. And we are agreed on that, the Florida SYG law is a wretched travesty. But the decision was not made by the police.
All in all, a minor point, hardly worth mentioning, except that you are wrong, and are being a bit of a dick to me, so I’ll rub your nose in it.
Upon reflection, I realize that this goes to the very heart of the OP: the police didn’t cover up anything, the decision was not in their hands. You’re welcome.
When discussing whether someone is guilty of a crime, yes it is, and yes it does. If you don’t want to invite Zimmerman to your next barbecue or have him babysit your kids, you are welcome to judge him by your personal morals. If you want the legal system to punish him, damn fucking right the legality of his actions is all that matters. Anyone who thinks otherwise is far more dangerous than Zimmerman could possibly be, as by advocating the abandonment of the rule of law you endanger everybody.
If you think the law is wrong, get it changed. Don’t say we should ignore it based on your feelings.