George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting

[Kreton]

I never admitted that he wasn't a vigilante.

You admitted that you didnt know if he was a vigilante or not.

If, as Grim proposed yesterday, it is a person who takes it upon himself to be the cops when he feels the cops are not doing their job, Zimmerman seems to fit that definition.

ZImmerman seemed to value the police. He wasnt doing their job, he was assisting by monitoring someone.

The points made by some of his most ardent defenders, who seem to think that Martin was a criminal who deserved to die, bear out that many think he's some sort of vigilante. "Here's a picture of Trayvon affecting a gangsta pose, therefore it was OK to kill him."

Dont fall into this type of debate. No one has ever said "Here's a picture of Trayvon affecting a gangsta pose, therefore it was OK to kill him." that i ahve seen. People, like myself, are not saying Trayvon deserved to die, but rather Zimmerman had the right to kill him. There is a difference.

Regardless, he took certain actions that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. Had he made different choices, Martin might not be dead. However, nothing can be proved because it's his account versus nothing, so convicting him of anything is impossible.

I agree with you that conviction is impossible if he gets a fair trial, however there is more than just Z's word.

The result of this confrontation was somebody's death. It's very hard to convince me of self-defense when your actions helped to put you in the situation.

You could make that argument for any self defense. If a woman hadnt tried to work things out with her abusive husband he wouldn't have beat her that last time and she wouldn't have had to shoot him. If a kid wasnt walking thru the wrong neighborhood he wouldnt have gotten jumped. If she didnt wear that dress she wouldnt have been raped. ect.

 

[KevinKohler]

I'm curious about Zimmerman's holstered weapon...what sort of holster was it, and was he wearing it in plain sight, or was it under his shirt, or something? Do we even have those details?

 

[buck]

Ah, but there's the rub, eh? Martin didn't know Zimm was armed. I'll still agree with you, though...going back was prettying F'ing stupid. But so is voting democrat, and I can't very well go around shooting them, and then getting off scott free, can I?

In that particular scenario, since you specifically mentioned it, it was known you had the gun. And Thunder still thinks there are people that would confront you.

 

[j-mac]

Where do you live? Cuz me and .45 are gonna swing by, follow you around for a bit, and we can talk later about reasonableness.

Allow me to lay out inmy humble opinion where you go wrong with your scenario here...

1. You start out with "Cuz me and .45 are gonna swing by..." and if you know anything at all about intent, this simple portion of your statement shows a different intent so far that we know of Z in this case. With it you imply that you are not going to report something in your neighborhood, but rather drive to someone elses neighborhood and follow them in order to provoke a situation....That is far different than spotting something, or someone out of place in your own neighborhood.

2. The talking portion in no way similar to M confronting Z whom according to Z's statement to police was that M approached him and asked if Z had a problem, and when Z said 'No', M proceeded to assault him.

The distance from events and context that Martin-ites have taken this story to the absurd is getting quickly to the point of nothing reasonable to discuss unless it is to come back after a jury verdict and ask some to publicly admit that they were wildly off.


j-mac

 

[Thunder]

...If a woman hadnt tried to work things out with her abusive husband he wouldn't have beat her that last time and she wouldn't have had to shoot him. If a kid wasnt walking thru the wrong neighborhood he wouldnt have gotten jumped. If she didnt wear that dress she wouldnt have been raped. ect.

rape-victims pursue their rapist?

kids getting jumped in the wrong neighborhood seek out folks who might jump them?

your analogies suck bigtime.

 

[KevinKohler]

OK, it's time to put an end to the baseless speculation and mis characterization of Florida Law by Thunder, and everyone else who has engaged in this activity.

Zimmerman's legal defense against the charges pending against him, is that he shot Trayvon Martin in an act of self defense. Zimmerman claims that while returning to his truck, Martin approached him and physically attacked him, knocking him to the ground whereby Martin proceeded to get on top of him and repeatedly slam his head into the concrete sidewalk. A struggle for Zimmerman's holstered weapon then ensued, and ended when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Trayvon Martin supporters have come up with evidence that they believe will nullify Zimmermans "self defense" claims in the eyes of the jury... Such as:

1. The use of the words "A-hole" and "F'ing punks" along with other statements made by Z during his conversation with police that night, which they claim shows him to be aggressive and determined to "take the law into his own hands if necessary" to prevent Martin from escaping police questioning.

2. That Z's assumption that Martin was possibly engaging in, or possibly planning, criminal activity, along with the fact so many robbery's had taken place in the area and no one arrested for them, lead to Zimmerman attempting to confront and/or illegally detain Martin until police arrived.

3. That Martin, being afraid for his life, was the one acting in self defense based on 2 scenarios. He was confronted by Zimmerman and then either Z initiated the physical contact, or Z allowed (by either accident or on purpose) for his gun to be visible to Martin, thereby justifying Martin initiating the attack fearing he was going to be shot.

EDIT - added a 4th

4. That the act of following Martin was illegal and/or an act of aggression, nullifying Z's self defense claim and/or justifying Martin's use of physical force as a means of self defense.

Before I continue, is there anything that Martin supporters would like to add, clarify, discuss or object to?

I believe I would fall into category 4. Not illegal, but it was an act of aggression, causing suspicion and fear, not enough to justify the use of lethal force by Martin against Zimm...but enough to cause one to believe that Zimm is at least PARTLY responsible for the altercation in the first place.

 

[Thunder]

In that particular scenario, since you specifically mentioned it, it was known you had the gun. And Thunder still thinks there are people that would confront you.

yes, brave people would.

 

[buck]

I'm curious about Zimmerman's holstered weapon...what sort of holster was it, and was he wearing it in plain sight, or was it under his shirt, or something? Do we even have those details?

I believe that we do not - other then it was concealed. I thought I heard Zimm state that he actually forgot about the gun until Martin went for it - after he had been on top of him. I could be wrong on that, though, and am too lazy to really go searching.

 

[Kreton]

I'm curious about Zimmerman's holstered weapon...what sort of holster was it, and was he wearing it in plain sight, or was it under his shirt, or something? Do we even have those details?

Only Zimmermans word. It was in his waist under his shirt is my understanding.

 

[rocket88]

You could make that argument for any self defense. If a woman hadnt tried to work things out with her abusive husband he wouldn't have beat her that last time and she wouldn't have had to shoot him. If a kid wasnt walking thru the wrong neighborhood he wouldnt have gotten jumped. If she didnt wear that dress she wouldnt have been raped. ect.

There's a big difference between a person minding their own business who is a victim, and a person who deliberately goes into the dangerous situation.

If two drug dealers got in a turf war, you could say that either of them had a reasonable belief that they'd get killed. I doubt you'd be able to use self-defense as an argument, though. I'm not saying Zimmerman was a criminal, but a reasonable person would look at that situation as dangerous, and he chose to put himself in it.

 

[buck]

yes, brave people would.

Do you have any examples of this in the real world? I'm quite intrigued by all these brave people escaping from someone then going back to confront them knowing they have a gun.

 

[KevinKohler]

j-mac;1060497572]Allow me to lay out inmy humble opinion where you go wrong with your scenario here...

1. You start out with "Cuz me and .45 are gonna swing by..." and if you know anything at all about intent, this simple portion of your statement shows a different intent so far that we know of Z in this case. With it you imply that you are not going to report something in your neighborhood, but rather drive to someone elses neighborhood and follow them in order to provoke a situation....That is far different than spotting something, or someone out of place in your own neighborhood.

This is not to create a similar scenario as the Martin case, only to show someone what it might feel like to be followed by someone of UNKNOWN INTENT. Martin had NO IDEA WHO ZIMMERMAN WAS, OR WHAT HE WAS DOING, BEYOND FOLLOWING HIM. That's Zimmerman's mistake, not Martin's.

2. The talking portion in no way similar to M confronting Z whom according to Z's statement to police was that M approached him and asked if Z had a problem, and when Z said 'No', M proceeded to assault him.

Really, because last I heard, Z was attacked by surprise, from behind. Is there a new story out now? Even so, a simple explanation post "No" might have diffused the situation, which, in my opinion, is the responsibility of a person holding a gun.

The distance from events and context that Martin-ites have taken this story to the absurd is getting quickly to the point of nothing reasonable to discuss unless it is to come back after a jury verdict and ask some to publicly admit that they were wildly off.

Personally, I think there is a good chance Zimm will get off. And what, in your opinion, is going to happen to SYG laws should this come to pass?

 

[j-mac]

yes, brave people would.

Or dumb ones....


j-mac

 

[Thunder]

Do you have any examples of this in the real world? I'm quite intrigued by all these brave people escaping from someone then going back to confront them knowing they have a gun.

you just moved the goalposts.

 

[KevinKohler]

Only Zimmermans word. It was in his waist under his shirt is my understanding.

If that is the case, that makes sense. That would be how Martin found out about it...he's on the dude, and figures, he's either got a raging hard on, or there is a gun there, lol. If it was in a holster, different story, I would think. Though maybe not, still. Lot can happen in a tussle on the ground.

Personally, I would never keep a gun tucked into my pants. I'd be too worried it would fall out, or down my pants.

 

[KevinKohler]

Thunder, is it your believe that Martin knew about the gun before going back, or found out about it only after the assault began?

 

[Kreton]

There's a big difference between a person minding their own business who is a victim, and a person who deliberately goes into the dangerous situation.

If two drug dealers got in a turf war, you could say that either of them had a reasonable belief that they'd get killed. I doubt you'd be able to use self-defense as an argument, though. I'm not saying Zimmerman was a criminal, but a reasonable person would look at that situation as dangerous, and he chose to put himself in it.

Any of the previous scenarios you could make the argument that they knowingly entered into a dangerous situation.

 

[buck]

you just moved the goalposts.

no I didn't. Here was my original question to you

I'm curious who this brave man is that after losing someone that they know is carrying a gun would go back without any weapopn to confront the guy. That is one bad ass / dumb MF'er.

Your response:

yes, brave people would.

And my last question in which you accused me of moving goalposts:

Do you have any examples of this in the real world? I'm quite intrigued by all these brave people escaping from someone then going back to confront them knowing they have a gun.

Which goalposts were moved?

 

[rocket88]

Any of the previous scenarios you could make the argument that they knowingly entered into a dangerous situation.

Not really. A person has a reasonable expectation to walk without being harrassed. If the situation is created because they engaged somebody, I would say that reasonable expectation is no longer there.

 

[Thunder]

Any of the previous scenarios you could make the argument that they knowingly entered into a dangerous situation.

wearing the wrong dress..puts a woman in a dangerous situation?

yeah, maybe according to the Taliban.

 

[Excon]

[SIZE=1][B]The 2011 Florida Statutes
	
Title XLVI
CRIMES
	
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
	
View Entire Chapter
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.[/B]
[/SIZE]

That was incomplete, so I followed the link, and pulled out what I am referencing.

You'll note that, even here, Zimm's use of force is "justified", even though I could argue that he was the aggressor.

Basically, what this is saying is, go ahead, start the fight, and if you start losing really bad, and the beating continues, even after you say uncle, shoot the guy.

In my opinion, losing a fight you started is not carte blanche to commit manslaughter.

This is likely the segment of the law that will be changed, pending the outcome of this trial.

I provided this information previously in another thread and are well aware of what it says. Gee, one month to the day. Clicky here.

I was prepared to provide it again, but was actually surprised when you provided it. I like that. :lol:

Your statement with my reply, was the following.

There are many things you can do that makes SYG invalid, that are perfectly legal.

Like what?
Here is the law, make sure your example fits.
[Sans cited law]

You were SYG specific in your post, hence my providing you with SYG specific Statutes.
So my reply was not inadequate, buy more on point.

It is a finer point of law, but "Use of force by aggressor", is not part of SYG and could not invoke SYG, and therefore would not invalidate it.

Don't get me wrong here, I understand what you are saying, but it really wasn't what I was asking because at this point my mind is set to the finer points of law and not to the in general atmosphere.

When you said; "There are many things you can do that makes SYG invalid, that are perfectly legal.", I was expecting something that applied to the actual SYG law and not "Use of force by aggressor" law because SYG does not come into play in that scenario.
I was expecting something along the lines of, this is what the SYG says and this says it invalidates it. Which of course you probably know it doesn't.

But in your general use of it, if Zimmerman was the aggressor it still boils down to what I have been saying it does. ~ Was Zimmerman's belief reasonable.

Where do you live? Cuz me and .45 are gonna swing by, follow you around for a bit, and we can talk later about reasonableness.

Come on over. I'm not afraid of a cell gangsta.

 

[Kreton]

Not really. A person has a reasonable expectation to walk without being harrassed. If the situation is created because they engaged somebody, I would say that reasonable expectation is no longer there.

Walking thru a dangerous neighborhood could easily be seen as entering into a dangerous situation. Same with the woman who tries one last time to work things out with the abusive husband. These people still have a right to self defense even if they are putting themselves into potentially dangerous situations.

 

[j-mac]

Personally, I think there is a good chance Zimm will get off. And what, in your opinion, is going to happen to SYG laws should this come to pass?

I'm kind of mixed still on it...If the world were in the right alignment, and there were no reason to believe that prosecutions, and judgements were never tainted by implied, and outright threats of violence I'd say you are probably right. However, in reality, Z will most likely be found guilty of some cursory crime that everyone thinks will satisfy the thug mob, and give all the M supporters just enough to carp on that they were right, when it will be clear that the justice system all around is, and will continue to fail in this case.


j-mac

 

[Thunder]

...However, in reality, Z will most likely be found guilty of some cursory crime that everyone thinks will satisfy the thug mob...

this way you can disregard any guilty verdict, as simply pandering to "thugs".

how convenient.

 

[Kreton]

I'm kind of mixed still on it...If the world were in the right alignment, and there were no reason to believe that prosecutions, and judgements were never tainted by implied, and outright threats of violence I'd say you are probably right. However, in reality, Z will most likely be found guilty of some cursory crime that everyone thinks will satisfy the thug mob, and give all the M supporters just enough to carp on that they were right, when it will be clear that the justice system all around is, and will continue to fail in this case.


j-mac

No mob to satisfy. This is America. These people have no attention span. Its only been a month or so since the arrest I think and already you rarely hear from people (outside of DP) even talking about trayvon. Give it another couple months and people wont even recognize Zimmermans name.