A Question For the Armchair Lawyers

[Excon]

Trayvon asked.. why are you following me.. George was too stupid to answer.. or too caught up in his cop fantasy... so he shot the boy.

He did that in his attack sharon. No answer Zimmerman provided would have stopped the attack.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Trayvon asked.. why are you following me.. George was too stupid to answer.. or too caught up in his cop fantasy... so he shot the boy.

You base your entire opinion on the "friend" of TM that heard "everything" but the fight/gunshot from 200 miles away over the phone. According to you TM initiated contact with GZ after realizing that GZ was following him - if you "fear" someone is that stupid or what?

 

[Excon]

Really, so you can just walk up to me, stop me from continuing on my way to demand my business, continue to prevent me from leaving without evidence of any crime being committed? Unless you are a police officer doing a legal stop, you are commiting assault because you are presenting a threat of bodily harm by physically acting to prevent my freedom of movement. It is not Battery, because you have not actually touched me yet.

The issue is not the carrying of the gun, which he is authorized to do as long as he has a CCW permit. The issue is that he has no legal authority to impede the kids movements much less stop to question him. It wasn't even his property so he could claim the kid was trespassing. The sidewalk is public access.

Why don't you stick to what the evidence says and not some uneducated persons assumptions of what she thinks she heard.

As there is no evidence of what you say.

 

[Excon]

The initial aggressor cannot claim self defense. That is codified in NYS self defense law and I'm reasonably sure the same applies in Florida.

Read the law. It has been provided.
You are not being reasonable as you are incorrect.

 

[Dapper Andy]

There is a great deal of difference between being in your home and finding someone has broken in and walking around a neighborhood and seeing a stranger lurking and pursuing that stranger. In the first situation, your property and the sanctity of your home has been invaded and you have every right to defend it. In the second situation, unless you are a police officer, you would be expected to contact the authorities if you suspect someone is up to no good and you are not permitted to take the law into your own hands and claim self defense.

Pursued directly implies an intention to attack or confront. You don't know that Zimmerman did that and that is my point.

For all you know the incident was initiated by Zimmerman legally approaching Martin, politely explaining that there has been a series of break ins, and he just wants to make sure everything is on the level. Do you mean to tell me that level of initiation causes Zimmerman to forfeit any legal right to defend himself regardless of what happens thereafter?

Again, I just can't fathom a world where the level of initiation doesn't matter.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why don't you stick to what the evidence says and not some uneducated persons assumptions of what she thinks she heard.

As there is no evidence of what you say.

I was replying to a statement made in here not in the case.

 

[Excon]

I was replying to a statement made in here not in the case.

Really?
Just who the **** are you trying to bull****?

This is the beginning of our exchange.
It is clear we both are talking about Zimmerman.

In Zimmerman's case he was NOT engaged in a lawful activity, the Sheriff Department had pointed out that no NW member is allowed to carry a gun or even follow a suspicious looking person. All the brochures distributed in Florida clearly point out (in writing with pictures) that the only duty of a NW volunteer (even the captain) is to watch & report.

Wrong. His actions were not illegal. He was not prohibited from being armed by any law, not even while performing NW duties.

What you said was wrong, as pointed out.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Pursued directly implies an intention to attack or confront. You don't know that Zimmerman did that and that is my point.

For all you know the incident was initiated by Zimmerman legally approaching Martin, politely explaining that there has been a series of break ins, and he just wants to make sure everything is on the level. Do you mean to tell me that level of initiation causes Zimmerman to forfeit any legal right to defend himself regardless of what happens thereafter?

Again, I just can't fathom a world where the level of initiation doesn't matter.

You can't fathom a world where someone would take great offense to just minding their own business and someone comes up to them, stops them or confronts them, and "politely" explains that there have been some break-ins in the neighborhood and what are you doing here? Even if a police officer came up to me in that scenario, I'd be greatly offended and flat out tell him/her so in no uncertain terms. If a total stranger, someone not in a legal position to do so, confronted me in that manner, I'd probably tell them to go **** themselves - to me, a confrontation like that, with the implication I'm either a criminal or not legally allowed to be there, is a form of assault on my person. I'll bet, in many neighborhoods in America, that kind of action would get you killed.

 

[What if...?]

This is exactly why Texas prohibits the use of deady force by the initial aggressor.

IF TM believed GZ to be armed the whole time then TM certainly did all in his power not to get away from GZ or to call for help.

Sorry, I mispoke.

From the moment Z "reached for his phone". Not the "whole time". Sorry.

So from Ms perspective, three possible things he might have seen:

1) Guy who's been following goes for their waist/pockets and M decides he's going for a weapon based on this behavior in response to his challenge and Ms behavior up to this point. Reasonable to punch Z in the nose. Uncertain when the gun came into view here, but it eventually did.

2) OR, guy following puts his hand on his gun in reflex and event proceeds as above except gun in*play*the entire struggle.

OR 3) guy following actually GOES for his gun same as above.

I suspect 2, but 1 IS how Z says it started.

And 1) earns him a punch in the nose in FL. So where to draw the line?

Its ALL about the moments when they came together. How they got where it happened and what happened when they got there.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Really?
Just who the **** are you trying to bull****?

This is the beginning of our exchange.
It is clear we both are talking about Zimmerman.

​

What you said was wrong, as pointed out.

Actually, to quote you "who the **** are you trying to bull****?" Don't do "selective quoting," make sure the whole point which was originally expressed is evident. I had actually said:

"This could have been true in this case except for the other part of the same law you ignored...

776.013(3) 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 has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In Zimmerman's case he was NOT engaged in a lawful activity, the Sheriff Department had pointed out that no NW member is allowed to carry a gun or even follow a suspicious looking person. All the brochures distributed in Florida clearly point out (in writing with pictures) that the only duty of a NW volunteer (even the captain) is to watch & report.

On the other hand, the teenager was simply minding his own business walking down a street. Of course he was black which apparently is sufficient grounds to suspect he is a threat, at least to Zimmerman. He girds himself with a gun, then approaches the kid to ask him his business, i.e. he did NOT watch and report, he accosted another civilian who legally need not even respond, since Zimmerman was not an officer of the law. Therefore, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, was not acting within the law when doing so, and so transfers the Stand Your Ground defense to the teenager who was doing NOTHING wrong.

So MY later response was to emphasize the part of my prior reply you FAILED to quote.

Zimmer assaulted the kid by stopping and detaining him with out the authority of law. He was not a police officer, he does not have the authority or right. The kid had every right to simply leave. Therefore Zimmerman was acting unlawfully.

 

[What if...?]

One cannot attack someone based on paranoid fantasy made worse by putting oneself in a dark place and failing to call the police.

You have clearly forgotten what it was like to be seventeen.

You act like black kids call the cops to help them. They don't.

You act like he didn't proceed directly towards where he was staying. By all the evidence he did. He stopped at some point, but had an incoming call from his friend just as he got between the buildings near as I can tell. So a minute or so to deal with that and we're up to showtime.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sorry, I mispoke.

From the moment Z "reached for his phone". Not the "whole time". Sorry.

So from Ms perspective, three possible things he might have seen:

1) Guy who's been following goes for their waist/pockets and M decides he's going for a weapon based on this behavior in response to his challenge and Ms behavior up to this point. Reasonable to punch Z in the nose. Uncertain when the gun came into view here, but it eventually did.

2) OR, guy following puts his hand on his gun in reflex and event proceeds as above except gun in*play*the entire struggle.

OR 3) guy following actually GOES for his gun same as above.

I suspect 2, but 1 IS how Z says it started.

And 1) earns him a punch in the nose in FL. So where to draw the line?

Its ALL about the moments when they came together. How they got where it happened and what happened when they got there.

Lots of things could have happened, but the state must prove that GZ initiated aggression, did not try to cease that aggression and shot TM out of "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life".

 

[Captain Adverse]

You have clearly forgotten what it was like to be seventeen.

You act like black kids call the cops to help them. They don't.

You act like he didn't proceed directly towards where he was staying. By all the evidence he did. He stopped at some point, but had an incoming call from his friend just as he got between the buildings near as I can tell. So a minute or so to deal with that and we're up to showtime.

I really wasn't interestd in the Zimmerman case so I haven't been following the news. Where was this kid located at the time of the stop? Was he on anyones property? More correctly was he on Zimmerman's property?

 

[Excon]

Actually, to quote you "who the **** are you trying to bull****?" Don't do "selective quoting," make sure the whole point which was originally expressed is evident. I had actually said:

:doh:lamo:doh
Here we go again.
Who the **** are you trying to bull****?
That is not selective quoting.
It is exactly what I stated. Where our exchange began. We were both speaking to Zimmerman.

And yes I know the rest of which you were speaking. It was not quoted because I was not replying to it. Or did you not understand that?
I did not need to quote it as you were wrong.

So MY later response was to emphasize the part of my prior reply you FAILED to quote.

I didn't need to quote it because you were wrong.

Zimmer assaulted the kid by stopping and detaining him with out the authority of law. He was not a police officer, he does not have the authority or right. The kid had every right to simply leave. Therefore Zimmerman was acting unlawfully.

Wrong.

There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.
What do you not understand about that?

 

[What if...?]

Lots of things could have happened, but the state must prove that GZ initiated aggression, did not try to cease that aggression and shot TM out of "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life".

The only real witness we have to the crucial elements is Z. Zs gonna do what's best for Z. So we're gonna hear what he wants us to hear.

But Zs story is crappy from the time he got out of his truck. I'm not sure the jury is going to believe Z is being teuthful by the time the Pross is done dissecting his testimony alongside the timeline with relevant visual aids and "eight by ten glossies with paragraph on the back of each one".

Not sure how THAT works either.

If the self defense claim is based almost solely on the word of the shooter, what happens if the jury loses faith in the credibility of the shooter but the pross has presented no contradictory "hard" evidence?

 

[Captain Adverse]

...And yes I know the rest of which you were speaking. It was not quoted because I was not replying to it. Or did you not understand that?
I did not need to quote it as you were wrong.

Well I WAS replying to that. Just because you ignored it did not make it any less an important part of my point.

...There is no evidence to support such a conclusion. What do you not understand about that?

Really? Really! Oh, my bad, so Zimmerman shot the kid from a distance? Got punched in the face cuz the kid walked up to him while Zimmerman was just sitting around minding his own business? Dude. Be serious. One piece of evidence that ALL parties agree on is that Zimmerman APPROACHED and ACCOSTED the kid.

He stopped the kid and talked to him. On what authority?? Please...What effing authority? You can stop someone, but if they don't want to talk to you YOU CAN"T KEEP THEM THERE! If you continue to try to prevent someone from leaving by interposing your body then you are threatening them with the possibility of physical harm. A threat of physical harm constitutes an assault.

The only way this kid, or any kid, would stick around is if you are telling him he can't leave and then doing something to make him stay. It's not a stretch of the imagination it is typical behavior.

He's claiming self-defense but the Florida DA who knows the law better than you or I is saying it was NOT self-defense. He can only do that if he can show Zimmerman was the aggressor and maintained that status throughout the confrontation. I am positing various possibilities that might fit the DA's argument. That's all.

 

[What if...?]

I really wasn't interestd in the Zimmerman case so I haven't been following the news. Where was this kid located at the time of the stop? Was he on anyones property? More correctly was he on Zimmerman's property?

He wasn't stopped.

How they came into close proximity has yet to be established.

Martin spoke first.

Virtually all the rest is based entirely on Zs testimony. People only heard some stuff and saw the very end.

He was on public property except when cutting into the complex. Not Zs property, common pedestrian shortcut.

 

[Excon]

Well I WAS replying to that. Just because you ignored it did not make it any less an important part of my point.

:doh
And you were still wrong! Duh!

Dude. Be serious. One piece of evidence that ALL parties agree on is that Zimmerman APPROACHED and ACCOSTED the kid.

Holy ****!
Wrong!
No wonder why you are wrong. You do not know the evidence. Do'h!

 

[Dapper Andy]

You can't fathom a world where someone would take great offense to just minding their own business and someone comes up to them, stops them or confronts them, and "politely" explains that there have been some break-ins in the neighborhood and what are you doing here? Even if a police officer came up to me in that scenario, I'd be greatly offended and flat out tell him/her so in no uncertain terms. If a total stranger, someone not in a legal position to do so, confronted me in that manner, I'd probably tell them to go **** themselves - to me, a confrontation like that, with the implication I'm either a criminal or not legally allowed to be there, is a form of assault on my person. I'll bet, in many neighborhoods in America, that kind of action would get you killed.

I wouldn't be offended but it sounds like you just have unnaturally thin skin.

So be it. Your feelings are not the issue here.

It's the forfeiture of a legal right to self defense that is.

What I can't fathom is a world where initiating contact by politely approaching someone forfeits your right to self defense.

 

[ric27]

The simple answer is YES. If you initiate the incident then your OPPONENT is defending himself against your agression and it is HE who has the right to claim self-defense. (In states that have a Duty to Retreat law, if he can effectively retreat and escape you he is required to try. The problem is Florida is a state with just the opposite, they have a Stand Your Ground law which enables you to repel agression with equal or greater force without the need to try and retreat.)

If Zimmerman is found to have initiated the incident, then he can no longer claim self-defense because his victim was exercising his right under state law to "stand his ground" and defend himself. That would mean Zimmerman committed murder.

Dismissed!

 

[Captain Adverse]

He wasn't stopped.

How they came into close proximity has yet to be established.

Martin spoke first.

Virtually all the rest is based entirely on Zs testimony. People only heard some stuff and saw the very end.

He was on public property except when cutting into the complex. Not Zs property, common pedestrian shortcut.

Aaargh! LOL I was under the impression from the old news reports I heard way back when that Zimmerman had admitted he approached and stopped the kid. That's what I get for not following the case. That this was corroborated by the person overhearing the confrontation on the telephone. My bad.

Still, it does not seem logical that the kid would approach Zimmerman, or just randomly punch him in the face. (If that actually happened, people have been known to fake injuries while being transported in police vehicles).

I think I will reserve comment until I do some more research on the actual case, see what the Florida D.A.'s arguments are. Then come back and make a more informed case of my own.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I wouldn't be offended but it sounds like you just have unnaturally thin skin.

So be it. Your feelings are not the issue here.

It's the forfeiture of a legal right to self defense that is.

What I can't fathom is a world where initiating contact by politely approaching someone forfeits your right to self defense.

Depends on what you consider "politely approaching" - I don't consider someone implying I may be a criminal to be very polite.

 

[ric27]

Aaargh! LOL I was under the impression from the old news reports I heard way back when that Zimmerman had admitted he approached and stopped the kid. That's what I get for not following the case. That this was corroborated by the person overhearing the confrontation on the telephone. My bad.

Still, it does not seem logical that the kid would approach Zimmerman, or just randomly punch him in the face. (If that actually happened, people have been known to fake injuries while being transported in police vehicles).

I think I will reserve comment until I do some more research on the actual case, see what the Florida D.A.'s arguments are. Then come back and make a more informed case of my own.

That's a good start because speculation based on unsupported or erroneous facts is not acceptable.

It makes you look foolish

 

[What if...?]

Aaargh! LOL I was under the impression from the old news reports I heard way back when that Zimmerman had admitted he approached and stopped the kid. That's what I get for not following the case. That this was corroborated by the person overhearing the confrontation on the telephone. My bad.

Still, it does not seem logical that the kid would approach Zimmerman, or just randomly punch him in the face. (If that actually happened, people have been known to fake injuries while being transported in police vehicles).

I think I will reserve comment until I do some more research on the actual case, see what the Florida D.A.'s arguments are. Then come back and make a more informed case of my own.

No worries.

I'm in the "tragedy of errors" camp.

Where they basically startled each other and it went downhill from there.

I think Z fibbed about it a bit to cover his ass. Maybe more than a bit.

 

[Gaius46]

Read the law. It has been provided.
You are not being reasonable as you are incorrect.

Perhaps incorrect with regard to Florida but certainly not NY.
I didnt read the entire thread I just answered the OP based on my knowledge of NY law. It seems counter intuitive that a sane self defense law would work otherwise because it can lead to bizarre results.

I'll read the rest of the thread and the law itself later.