In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

except, AS FAR AS WE KNOW Martin wasnt attacked, he was followed.

also was nightime (dark out)----- seems to be some "entitlement rage" going on where people feel they have an inalienable RIGHT to walk around other peoples property without being questioned. There is at least a chance that Zim's suspisions could have been dispelled.

Running when observed is an element of "suspicious behavior" & if you do run, & get away, its smarter NOT to go back. (but then you pretty much hafta run every time you see that person again).

Eh, that was a combination of what was already destined to be a convoluted sentence, and trying to type out and post said sentence while at work.

I disagree. My brother is around Martin's measurements, same height but much more muscular. I'm closer to Zimmerman's. He has a very lean figure (like Martin, from what pics tell me), I have a stocky build like Zimmerman.

But despite the fact that he has a ton of muscle, depending on what we are wearing you could definitely interpret me as being the bigger threat. Not if you are close up and able to examine our body types, but through clothes? It's not like Martin could tell how jacked Zimmerman was through his jacket.

Maybe I'm being unfair, because I can only think about how I would react. But it's always seemed to me like the human mind is more likely to bias in favor of broadness, rather than height.

Having a right to do something can change according to whether or not a situation arises from it. When we say "Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin", we are assuming something is the case that a Jury should be deciding, as what the question is whether or not following Martin can be considered negligence. I linked the law in question earlier in the thread, but criminal negligence is dependent on harm or near-harm coming to someone as a result of your actions (which would not have been illegal otherwise).

So, yeah, in one sense Zimmerman definitely had the "right" to follow Martin. But in the real sense, when we mean to say that there was nothing wrong or criminal with following him, we don't know the answer.

[EDIT]

As for their sizes, that's probably fair. Zimmerman couldn't have known how tall Martin was just by looking at him from a distance. Height is definitely intimidating when you are next to someone, but it's far less of a factor at a distance (where you can only consider proportions). It's kinda like when my brother is watching basketball. None of the players look intimidating to me... until I see them standing next to a coach. But when he's watching football, they all look intimidating.

I don't really feel like going back to listen to the 911 tape--can someone confirm which came first: Martin runs and Zimmerman leaves the vehicle?

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 10:59am by idiggory

My point is that Florida's negligence law, which I linked earlier in the thread, can still make the act of following criminal. The law establishes negligence in the event of harm or near-harm, and it established based on the rationality of action--an action being legal does not mean it cannot be criminal in the wake of later events.

It's not illegal for me to toss something off a roof that I'm repaving (assuming zoning laws that don't prohibit it). It is criminally negligent (a felony in Florida) if it causes harm or near-harm to someone else though.

Now see, why is this so hard for gbaji?

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the phrasing here bothers me. We don't know what happened either way.

Really, all we know is:

Zimmerman followed Martin
Martin and Zimmerman fought
Zimmerman shot Martin

We have conflicting stories regarding how the fight began and how it proceeded. We don't know much about what made Martin seem suspicious to Zimmerman. We don't know how long Zimmerman was watching or following Martin before exiting his vehicle to chase after him. We don't know who initiated the fight. We don't know how the fight proceeded (important, because SYG no longer applies if your opponent surrenders).

We have conflicting witness testimonies and (seemingly fair, imo) allegations of seriously poor police work. It wouldn't surprise me if, even if Zimmerman was guilty of something criminal, he'd never be charged because of various problems with the case (witness leading being the most significant, compounded with delayed testimonies until after the media coverage).

There's very little we don't know about the case. I seriously doubt Zimmerman murdered Martin in cold blood, just like I can't believe that Martin was committing crimes when Zimmerman spotted him.

What we need to know is whether or not SYG applies. If Zimmerman was criminally negligent or the aggressor, it does not apply. If Martin surrendered (which you could seriously argue if the pleads for help are confirmed to be his), then SYG does not apply. If Zimmerman did not start the fight, is not found negligent, and was not committing some other felony at the time, then SYG applies.

That's pretty much the extent of what we know. I feel that Zimmerman's actions were sufficiently negligent, but that's for a jury (not me) to decide.

Which is why I want him charged. Bring it to trial and have it sorted out there. I'm not demanding his execution, I'm asking that the courts be allowed to do their job. Police are not judges. The DA is not the judge. It is not either of their job to decide if Zimmerman is guilty or not.

I'm only going to respond to these 2 parts because I agree with the rest of what you posted.

SYG can apply if Zimmerman is the aggressor if, at the point in the alercation when Martin was shot, he had lost the upper hand, Martin had not fled and instead pressed the fight, and Zimmerman felt in grave danger. I don't necessarily agree with that wording of the law either, but that's the way it's written. I mean, what red-blooded American, when phyysically assault and fights back, is going to be clear of head enough to realize they have the upper hand in the fight and should try to end the fight so the other party doesn't take out a gun and shoot them? I think SYG should be written in such a way that you have a right to protect yourself, your property, or another person who is having a forcable felony committed against them. But if you start the physical altercation should not apply.

The only reason I disagree with the second paragraph is because, unfortunately, that is not the way the SYG law is written. The law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Speedy trial laws also make it difficult to arrest someone before you have enough evidence to convict. I don't doubt that Zimmerman will eventually be arrested, and so far he hasn't gone anywhere so I think he will still be there when they come with the warrant.

I'm just afraid that the trial wil turn into an even bigger media whore circus than the investigation so far has been.

You can get away with statutory rape if you can prove the underage individual not only made no attempt to prove their legal status, but went out of their way to hide it. There's no "If A happens, B is the consequence." You should see the UCMJ books we have. The first three pages are all of the UCMJ laws and charges, and the following thousand~ish pages are how and when they are and aren't applicable and in what situations.

1) Pick fight
2) Start losing and kill other guy
3) ???
4) Profit!

See, but there the burden of proof is on the defendent, which makes sense. The prosecution shouldn't have to prove that the kid didn't hide their age.

But if that's actually how SYG works, I could walk up to anyone in an isolated section of Florida, force a fight, then murder them and claim self defense. If the burden of proof is on the prosecution, they have very little hope unless I was stupid enough to commit the crime where there was AV recording being done, killed him stupidly (like I put the gun in his mouth or something), or failed to make the fight believable.

I really, really, really hope the lawmakers in Florida weren't this stupid. It's believable that they were, but I have to have SOME faith in humanity. Maybe.

Bullshit. If he'd have been found innocent he'd still be chastised as a racist and how he murdered a young innocent little boy and there would be equal, if not more, fervor over the justice system. If he'd have been found guilty there'd be fervor over the failures of the justice system when you're found guilty of just defending yourself against someone who was on the verge of killing you and how justice was subverted based purely on public opinion.

Either way, pure and utter bullshit if you think, for even a second, that a trial would have made it all better.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 4:06pm by lolgaxe

How in the world are they supposed to EVER convict someone of murder, then, barring the most blatant pieces of evidence?

It ALSO says that you are criminally responsible for his death if he makes it clear that he wants to surrender, even if he attacked you first. I don't even understand what that means, though. Who the hell is going to take the word of the guy with a gun that just jumped them? I wouldn't.

Aye, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals. But these are things that I wonder about with the case, because of all the gaps that have to be filled in. Little things like whether Martin saw a gun could really change the dynamic of the situation to me. There's no evidence one way or the other, so it remains to be seen.

I would. You're statistically more likely to be injured or killed if you're confronted by someone with a weapon and don't comply, and you're far less likely to survive if you actively fight back. Confrontation should be your last resort.

"Give me your wallet or die!"
"Yelp, here you go. Enjoy."

Sure, I'd fight back if I didn't know the reason and the gun was an unknown variable, but once it was introduced I sure as hell would stop. I might still get shot, but the chances of being shot are much higher if you do continue. To put it simply, if I'm gambling with my life I'd rather bet on Red than 32. Even if it's only a 50% chance, it's still higher than the alternative.

Yeah, I was thinking that they had a weapon, but I otherwise had them disabled. They're trying to surrender, but I'm the only thing keeping them from actually using the weapon on me. Chances are I'm not going to take that leap of faith.

Quick and dirty example, I have them pinned to the ground, and the gun is still holstered or something. Or maybe it's beneath them/ just out of reach/whatever. I can't grab the gun without letting them go, but neither can they. To be fair, I actually have no clue what I'd do in the situation, but I don't see myself just taking their word for it and backing off. And I definitely don't know any way to continue to disable them while getting the gun away.

Just seems ridiculous that the law requires you to accept their surrender or lose your ability to claim self defense. When there's a weapon involved (and you aren't in complete control of it), I'm not entirely sure you ever can truly believe their intention to surrender.

If you've got them pinned, then you roll them on their stomach and scream in their ear to stretch their arms out, palms up, and put their feet shoulder length apart with their big toes and heels touching the ground. You do that because if they try to escape they'll be completely off balance and you can react much faster than they can. At that point you'd draw their far arm back holding their thumb, followed by the closer arm, and cuff them. Barring actual police action for a civilian I'd say that would be a pretty good time to open up a line of communication to find out what's going on.

After all, if anything really is clear about this case it's that 99% of it was because of misunderstandings and a complete lack of communication. I'm more likely to fight back against someone when I've got a rifle, forty pounds of ceramic plates and at least three people similarly geared against someone in a mandress and AK47 than I am walking to the gas station to get a hot dog.

Like I said, it's about going with the safer bet.

Edited, Apr 10th 2012 5:19pm by lolgaxe

Wesley Snipes says, "Always bet on black.". I don't know who to believe. [:sad:]

I always joke about not knowing any black people because everyone I know who claims they are are actually varying shades of brown. But Wesley Snipes? That guy is black.

When there's no evidence of self defense. I think the problem here is that people continue to ignore the most critical part of this. Zimmerman's description of the sequence of events, the physical evidence at the scene, and at least 3 different eye witness reports all were in agreement and supported his claim of self defense. Zimmerman doesn't get to start just claiming self defense. Self defense has to be the clear determination at the scene (and it was, overwhelming, in this case).

Once that has happened *then* the burden falls on the police and prosecutors to find evidence that the shooting fails to meet the requirements of self defense.


As I keep repeating over and over, the facts of the scene itself at the time the police arrived all pointed to a legitimate case of self defense. When you've got three witnesses all saying that the shooter was on his back with the other guy on top of him punching him just prior to the shot being fired, that puts the whole thing into the self defense category. At that point, you have to show sufficient evidence to change that assessment. So far, no one has. And frankly, none of even the speculative ideas floating around in this thread are sufficient to do so.


If we'd just found Martin dead with Zimmerman standing over him, with no witnesses and none of the physical evidence (No bloody nose, wound in the back of his head, grass stains on his back, etc) then it's quite certain Zimmerman would have been charged with manslaughter. But the evidence at the time is very very powerfully in support of self defense. As I've said before, this is nearly as perfect an example of legitimate use of a concealed weapon in self defense as you can get. If you asked 100 experts on self defense laws to list their top 5 scenarios in which lethal force is justified for self defense, they'd probably all list this exact situation (shooter on his back with an assailant on top of him continuing to beat him, with no sign that anyone was running over to help) as number 1 or 2 on their lists.


It's really that clear. And that's why the police correctly did not press charges.

That's not clear.