So you’re going to dismiss the whole stalking thing. Plus the “these assholes always get away” thing from the 911 call. Okay, not surprised. Nothing to see there, nothing to see.
But how do you explain witnesses who say the fight started 4 houses away from where the kid was killed? Are you really asking us to dismiss that too, just because of what Zimmerman has claimed?
I guess if Zimmerman had asserted that Martin bent down and carried his 250 lbs ass down the street, you’d think that’s plausible too. Since I’m not all that inclined to listen to Zimmerman’s self-serving claims, I don’t have to worry about being so gullible.
It was purely a political thing, spear-headed (in Florida) by a legislator named Dennis Baxley. People have always been able to use self-defense to justify a killing. This law, however–in cases where there are no witnesses–just makes the decision of whether to try very subjective. So much so that prosecutors aren’t going to bother to charge someone unless they’re forced to for some other reasons.
I don’t, but the mitigating factor here is that the shooter is a cop, and has a good reason to be armed. He also has the authority to monitor individuals and issue commands. Anyone who doesn’t comply with these commands (as long as they are legal) runs the risk of being arrested. If you try to resist arrest, that’s another crime. If you threaten the cop either verbally or physically, that’s considered assault against an officer, another crime. So that’s three crimes right there you are committing. Still doesn’t come anywhere close to justify execution, but at least the cop can legally claim that he was the victim of assault.
A regular citizen who has accosted another citizen can’t get away with this just because they claim to be a good guy, serving the public good. So this is a poor analogy. monstro’s gang member analogy comes a lot closer.
To start at the end of your post, if you’re not prepared to listen to Zimmerman’s statement, you are ignoring the most important piece of evidence in this case, and your opinion on it is worthless.
On to the other points. There is no evidence of stalking. The 911 call appears to show that Zimmerman was a bit of a dick - but that’s not illegal, and arguably not even relevant. It doesn’t show any intention to start a fight, or any intention to kill. This isn’t an arguable point, it simply doesn’t, and if you keep claiming otherwise, you are simply wrong.
There are several explanations why the body was found four houses away from where the fight began. One, of course, is that Martin was fleeing, and Zimmerman shot him in the back whilst chasing him, or at 4 houses distance. As I’m sure you’re aware, that would need to be a very good shot, or extremely lucky, to kill before anyone could reach him. Evidence of Zimmerman’s ability with a firearm would be useful here.
Another possibility is that the severely wounded Martin crawled that distance before dying. If that’s the case, there would be clear physical evidence of it.
Another option is that Zimmerman was retreating as Martin attacked him, before pulling the gun and firing. Please show me what evidence you are using to decide between these theories.
I will repeat again that Zimmerman’s statement that he shot and killed Martin in self defence is not a statement of defence from someone accused of a crime - it is a statement from someone who believes himself the victim of a crime - a crime committed by someone Zimmerman called the police about just prior to the events here.
He may well be lying, but it’s utterly ridiculous to assume so based on, well, whatever it is your basing it on. Clarification of that would be helpful. The problem is, you are assuming a great many things based on little or no evidence. They may turn out to be true - and if they are Zimmerman will get the punishment he deserves. But if they are not, you will have been clamouring for an innocent victim to be locked up. That is not something that should be done.
I agree the police have released statements I think are inappropriate, I think they should have referred any questions about charging to the State’s Attorney, and not made any affirmative statements in support of a suspect in an open criminal investigation.
I think the police became uncomfortable with the scrutiny and, due to being inept at PR, have released contradictory and sometimes confusing statements in the hope that it ends the controversy surrounding their department.
Despite what a law professor said in a CS Monitor article I referenced about how this case would be difficult even without a Stand Your Ground statute, my layman’s interpretation makes me think the SYG statute is quite important. It’s important because it totally removes the traditional duty to retreat. If that duty was still present the fact that Zimmerman approached Martin after being told it was unnecessary to do so would actually be of important relevance. Some people (you with the face) put a lot of weight on that, but with no duty to retreat at all, I don’t think just approaching a suspicious person really impacts your legal culpability in what happens next.
Maybe it doesn’t in a non-SYG state either, but I think it definitely would create a different legal atmosphere more conducive to bringing a charge if not for the SYG statute.
The Stand Your Ground law does seem to have been criticized by Florida prosecutors, and it appears it has resulted in several other cases not being prosecuted that probably would have been prosecuted prior to the passage of the law. It isn’t what I would call an epidemic, but it does appear that in Florida you can get away with an act under a claim of self-defense that in most other States you would be at serious jeopardy of a criminal conviction.
I didn’t presume my cop scenario was the same as the Zimmerman scenario, but I felt it opened an important line of thinking. If you’re a prosecutor something you have to take into account is a big part of the reason the police officer in my case would unjustly never be convicted (and probably never be charged) is because of the vast institutional respect we have for the police. Obviously police have de jure real power that we as society entrust them with, and real privileges and responsibilities regular people do not. However, over and beyond that the reason it is difficult for any prosecutor to against a police officer is because of the fact that there is a vast amount of institutional and societal respect for the police. There’s also a lot of societal distrust of police in certain demographics, but any jury will be a mix of people and you can be sure no defense attorney defending a police officer would let the jury be 12 black people who admit to feeling uncomfortable with police officers.
Something you’d have to be worried about at trial is that all it takes is one juror who identifies with Zimmerman as “community protector” and will be intrinsically likely to trust Zimmerman, especially in a case without ironclad evidence. There are also the jurors who will intrinsically distrust Trayvon. Not just because he is black, but because he’s a teenager.
I have a neighbor who is an 85+ year old woman. I remember an incident a few years ago in which she was in a near state of panic/apoplexy because one of the teenagers drove their bicycle through her yard. She felt scared, threatened, in danger and etc. So much so that she actually called the police and called another male neighbor and asked him to speak to the teenager for her ( she was too afraid of the teenager to do it herself.)
This teenager was like 13/14 years old, and was a white kid from an affluent family (everyone in my neighborhood is affluent.) Her fears were irrational, but there are a lot of people that get irrationally afraid of young people and unfortunately irrationally afraid of young black people more so than others.
Varies from place to place, as recently as the 80s many states you could easily buy and own a firearm but carrying one in public (concealed or open carry) was legally murky or difficult. Many states had a permitting system for concealed carry licenses called “may-issue.” Which means the State “could” issue you a concealed carry permit, but you had to demonstrate a reason that you needed the permit and even then it was entirely up to the discretion of the State (sometimes your local sheriff or equivalent.)
Over time that has changed. In the 80s Vermont was the only essentially unrestricted state, meaning you could open or concealed carry with no permit at all. There are now 4-5 unrestricted states. In the 80s I’d say more than half of all states were “may-issue.” So unless you had a really good reason (usually employment related) to carry a weapon, or were retired law enforcement, it’d be hard or iffy to get a permit for carry. Now, most states are “shall issue”, meaning the State has to issue you the permit if you meet the criteria under the statute, and there is no discretion by agents of the State as long as you meet those criteria.
Really the only “may-issue” states left are all in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast (New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware.) California is a lone exception as a shall-issue State west of the Mississippi.
Illinois is the biggest exception in that it is a “no issue” meaning you can’t get a carry permit in Illinois at all.
I don’t think it’s cut and dry, either. While it’s easy to act as though I’m leaping to conclusions based on one piece of data, you know that I’m not. Every thing I point out that goes against Zimmerman, you may dismiss as irrelevant or inconclusive. But it’s hard to do that when you combine multiple pieces a data together.
The 911 call is just one piece of data that points to Zimmermans intent and state of mind. Is it proof positive that Zimmerman was hellbent on catching Martin, even it meant doing something illegal to do so? No. But is it an indication that he had prejudged the kid as a threat and was willing to overstep bounds to nab him? Hell yes it’s an indication. We couldn’t possibly get a clearer indicator if we wanted.
Zimmerman outweighed the kid by 100 lbs. is this proof that Martin couldnt have launched an offensive against him as claimed? No of course not. In the absence of evidence that the kid was irrationally violent, though, it is unreasonable, on it’s face, to assume the kid started wailing on Zimmerman under those mismatched conditions. Martin wasnt above running from Zimmerman from the beginning, according to Zimmerman’s call to the police, so what would suddenly cause him change tactics and become violent?
So the size differential is another piece of data that puts into question Zimmermans claim. You can dismiss that, too, if thats your preference. But when you do that every time someone offers something that goes against Zimmerman, you can’t be surprised when someone calls you biased. And when I say you, I mean the cops and the states attorney. I hope this whole thing blows up on them in major way.
Martin, do you know what the current situation is in Florida? That is, specifically, did Zimmerman have the right to carry his weapon in public for any or no reason?
I’ve been assuming the answer is yes, as I imagine it would have been reported otherwise.
Definitely he had the right, police have confirmed.
Florida is very pro-gun rights. Most States in the Southwest and Southeast are very pro-gun rights, as are most in the “flyover” (square shaped) states in the plains north up to the Canadian border.
The only areas where you have any real difficult legally carrying a firearm are California, D.C., a few New England States and a few Mid-Atlantic States. New England also has states like Vermont that have traditionally been super-libertarian and have some of the least restrictive gun control laws.
It doesnt sound like you’re familiar with all the details in this case. Zimmerman admitted to following the kid up to the very end. He was trying to monitor where he went so that he wouldn’t get away. That is stalking.
To argue over something that is not even controversial at this point is a waste of my time. So goodbye.
This only confirms your ignorance of this case and the desperate lengths you’re willing to go to square the facts with Zimmermans testimony. The kid had a bullet wound to the chest and was probably dead instantly. Witnesses would have seen him crawling, but amazingly no one has claimed that he did this. But thanks for playing.
The two sides are not equal. If you want to claim that Zimmerman committed a crime, you have to prove it. No-one has to prove he is innocent, that is the default assumption. This is what you seem to fail to understand - innocent until proven guilty is not a catchphrase, it’s not a complicated piece of legal jargon, it’s the absolute bedrock of the concept of justice. You are, because of your bias, ignoring this, and that is both stupid and dangerous. This is why Zimmerman’s statement is so important, and why you don’t get to say it’s inherently untrustworthy.
You have to show, with proof, that Zimmerman did, in fact, commit a crime. Nothing in your post even attempts to do that, all you are doing is attempting to cast doubt on a factual claim that he is innocent, a claim that no-one in this thread has made. Factual innocence is irrelevant, as he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The fact that there is a plausible, realistic scenario that fits the available facts where Zimmerman is not guilty of any crime is sufficient for us to say he’s not guilty. This can only change if new evidence comes to light (which it almost certainly will, although to what effect it’s impossible to say), and the onus is on those accusing him to provide that evidence.
This is how I see it happening, we’ll never really know but this is how I saw it going down when I first read about this case.
Zimmerman approaches the kid, he doesn’t mention the police, he either doesn’t want him running scared or he’s rushing because he doesn’t say a word, just grabs him by his hood or maybe an arm or a wrist. He wants to make an “arrest”, be found sitting on top of the kid when the police get there. He may or may not have seen Zimmerman watching him, he says that he was looking straight at him but this man obviously can’t see anything correctly as he said he looked drugged up and was looking suspicious, and or might have had a weapon.
So what happens? Zimmerman is a stranger. Trayvon doesn’t know there is some misunderstanding, all he knows is some guy is grabbing him and trying to subdue him, for reasons he doesn’t know. Maybe Zimmerman does say something about the police but by then it’s really too late, you either have someone you saw following you in a creepy way, or some guy rushing you out of the blue. So he fights back. Zimmerman is sloppy, takes some hits, the struggle gets to the ground but the fact is Zimmerman took damage and he’s in a different state of mind now.
Zimmerman is a little worried, he was so gung ho before this but the kid is dishing out some damage, it’s also wet out, so he’s never secure in the position he has Trayvon in and it just creates an uneasy feeling on his end of the confrontation. The kid’s also screaming for help which could be annoying if you think you’re in the right while this is all going on, continues to pile on the stress.
Zimmerman’s on top of him now, a kid he thinks has a weapon. Maybe he’s trying to get Zimmerman’s hands off his clothing, makes a move that just gets Zimmerman seeing his whole life playing out in front of him, scares him real good. So Zimmerman pulls out the gun in order to shoot him before he thinks he’ll get a knife or a gun pulled out on him first.
What in your opinion does some of the witnesses saying the fight started 4 houses away from where Martin was killed mean? Do you think it is evidence showing Zimmerman chased down a fleeing Martin and shot him, or that Martin was shot from a distance?
How comfortable are you in letting public politics like this factor into prosecutorial conduct? I am not naive enough to think pro-vigilantism and public fears against young black males has nothing to do why some cases go to trial and some do not. The question is, do you think this is a problem or do you think it’s just the cost of living in a democracy?
I have a hard time believing you or anyone else would have a blasé attitude if the state was kowtowing to a predominately black populace after a white kid was gunned down like Martin was. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
Who the fuck is blasé? I’m extremely disturbed by the clamour to arrest and try someone on extremely flimsy evidence, and the presumption that, because he’s white, he must be guilty and I must be biased. You are the one who wants to suspend the laws of the land and the principles of justice based on your own feelings, feelings that appear to border on anti-white racism.
I think the whole situation is tragic, it’s tragic that someone lost their life needlessly, it’s tragic that someone feels they need to act as an unofficial armed watchman (it’s even more tragic if that need is justified), and it’s tragic that people like you want to convict anyone based on newspaper reports, hearsay, and personal speculation.
Even if Zimmerman is guilty, he needs to be protected from people like you.
It’s both. It’s a problem that is a cost of living in a democracy. More specifically not a democracy but a country with a strong tradition of protecting the rights of the accused from the State.
I think it very possible Trayvon was the victim of something that either was illegal or should be illegal, and I also do not think we need to change our criminal justice system because of it. You cannot get it exactly right, and overall I’m more comfortable with a system that lets more people off unfairly than I am in one that convicts more people unfairly.
This case exposes clear political concerns, but no case is truly apolitical. I do not know of a good alternative to prosecutorial discretion. They are in a position of trust and power, a civil society requires people to be in those positions of trust and power. It is inherent in the office that will sometimes mean they do unpopular things. With a prosecutor they have to steward limited resources, and I think if they do not believe they can win, they are doing their government and society a good service by not pursuing the case. Prosecutor’s offices are overwhelmed as it is, without being crusaders fighting fights that cannot be won. I also think if the prosecutor is unsure of a suspect’s guilt, such that they have doubts about the case, then even if the public outrage is massive they are within their proper discretion to decide not to pursue a case.
I can’t think of any good alternatives to having persons of trust that we select to fill this role. Any democratic system (like having public groups of citizens vote on who the prosecutor should proceed against) are too open to the injurious influence of mob mentality.
I don’t think you know me very well. If I was a black person in America I’d probably be more personally invested in various injustices. However as a white person I wouldn’t feel any reason to change our criminal justice system or to go crazy in a case where prosecutors have a white boy killed by a black man but they claim they lack the evidence to secure a conviction.
I think with government you need to be both be trustful and distrustful. We need to trust our officials to some degree or we undermine the entire legitimacy of our system of government. However, we need to also be ever vigilant, keep them on a tight leash, and have official mechanisms for reviewing and investigating their conduct. If a black prosecutor declined to pursue a case against a black man who shot and killed a white boy, and an investigation showed that the prosecutor was acting out of racial bias and not normal prosecutorial discretion then I’d be all for doing something about it. Either disciplinary or etc, I’d certainly support a civil suit.
That’s how I feel regardless of the race of everyone involved. I won’t pretend that personal feelings will never be influenced by race, I can definitely see that if I was black I’d be a lot more sensitive to some issues than I am now, but I don’t think any of that means we should change the rule of law to the rule of public passion.
It means that someone was chasing someone else for a good amount of time during the encounter. Second to that, it means that whomever was doing the chasing was not merely standing their ground. They were escalating the conflict aggressively.
Question: Who most likely would have been chasing whom? Here are the choices.
The man who expressed from the start the intent to get Martin before he ran away?
The man who admitted to the cops, post-shooting, that he followed Martin up to the point that fight started?
The man with the gun?
Or the kid who was unarmed and had zero motive to chase Zimmerman?
Seriously, this is eeeeasy. It’s no more difficult than figuring out OJs motive to kill Nicole. Zimmerman was the only one with an agenda. When you factor in the weapon, it becomes implausible that Martin would have been the chaser. So implausible it’s borderline asinine to consider a possibility just because Zimmerman said so.