State v Zimmerman

[pErvinalia]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

Maybe so. For that I apologize. I guess my comment is directed more at the simpering liberal panty-waists who think that criminals deserve consideration and safety while plying their trade.

As is the case with all your rants. You don't actually listen to what your fellow debater is saying.

Regarding this case, I haven't really followed it much. Is there a somewhat agreed upon set of facts about the event? From what I understand Zimmerman was doing neighbourhood watch, and confronted Martin and they got in a fight and Z shot M. Is that the gist of it? Any specifics that are more or less confirmed?

Much more is confirmed:

1. Zimmerman sits in truck on neighborhood watch.
2. Z sees M, and calls 911.
3. Z reports to 911 what he says M is doing.
4. Dispatcher dispatches an officer - on the stand at trial the dispatcher said that if M was doing what Z said he was doing, it was suspicious and warranted a call to 911.
5. Z reports M had noticed he was being watched by Z from Z's truck, and M started to run off.
6. Z exits truck and starts to run after M.
7. Dispatcher asks if Z is following M. Z answers yes. Dispatcher says "we do not need you to do that." Z says "o.k." and stops. Dispatcher testified at trial that he did not give any instructions or orders, and that they are not empowered to do that. He gave a suggestion.
8. about a minute and a half goes by with Z still talking to the dispatcher discussing locations and whereabouts and M is not in the vicinity. Z has lost sight of M.
9. Z hangs up with dispatcher and about 3 more minutes later the conflict ensues.
10. Part of an exchange of words is heard by M's girlfriend on the phone and she testifies to M calling Z a creepy ass cracker and to Z asking M "what are you doing around here?" or words to that effect.
11. Fight ensues. We do not know who started it.
12. Prosecution called a witness named Good who testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman raining blows on Z in mixed martial arts style, specifically something called "ground and pound." He was very clear that the dark sweatshirt was on top, and the red colored clothes were on the bottom and that it was the red colored clothing on bottom that was screaming for help.
13. Gunfire.
14. Martin dead.
15. Z hangs around waits for police and immediately seems to cooperate by telling what he says happened.
16. Evidence is collected and pictures taken of wounds to Z's back of head.

I think that roughly covers it.

If them's the facts, and while it appears a clusterfuck, Z was perhaps in fear of his life and shot M "justifiably". I guess the only unresolved bit is who started the fight. If Z physically started it, then you've got to think he should wear a significant share of blame. But if M started it, then it would seem that Z was within his rights to shoot him.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is reasonable doubt as to who started the fight. Could have been either of them, so how can we convict?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... arred.html

According to Alan Dershowitz, no small legal expert, this case was a "clear case" of self-defense. There was a mountain of doubt. And, the prosecution probably violated George Zimmerman's civil rights.

[mistermack]

None of the facts conflict with the picture of Zimmerman carrying a gun in the hope that one day, he can be a "hero" who takes out a punk, and gets attention and praise, and it might even help in his ambition to be a cop.
If he did have this in mind, he would certainly have it in mind that he had to establish a clear case of self-defence.
Hence his call to report the intruder.
Hence his fighting with the intruder, when he could have just pulled the gun and threatened him.
Hence his ludicrous over-the-top screaming, as he was struggling with Martin.
And hence his waiting around for the cops.

All of this matches the scenario of a pathetic wanker with a gun who wanted to blow away a punk and be a hero. And that's what WOULD have happened, if the victim had been a thief. Nobody would have given a shit. It very nearly did happen that way.

I don't think this prosecution was ever designed to succeed. It was just going through the motions, to get the authorities off the hook.
I could have mounted a better prosecution case in my sleep, than they did.

But now they can pretend that the wheels of justice have turned, and nobody was negligent, first time around.
And the dummies are lapping it up.

[Daedalus]

None of the facts conflict with the picture of Zimmerman carrying a gun in the hope that one day, he can be a "hero" who takes out a punk, and gets attention and praise, and it might even help in his ambition to be a cop.
If he did have this in mind, he would certainly have it in mind that he had to establish a clear case of self-defence.
Hence his call to report the intruder.
Hence his fighting with the intruder, when he could have just pulled the gun and threatened him.
Hence his ludicrous over-the-top screaming, as he was struggling with Martin.
And hence his waiting around for the cops.

All of this matches the scenario of a pathetic wanker with a gun who wanted to blow away a punk and be a hero. And that's what WOULD have happened, if the victim had been a thief. Nobody would have given a shit. It very nearly did happen that way.

I don't think this prosecution was ever designed to succeed. It was just going through the motions, to get the authorities off the hook.
I could have mounted a better prosecution case in my sleep, than they did.

But now they can pretend that the wheels of justice have turned, and nobody was negligent, first time around.
And the dummies are lapping it up.

You may be right about that theory, but if so it was all perfectly executed and in part a result of Martin's willingness to "play along" with Zimmerman's scenario. Zimmerman would also have to be confident that the person he'd accost would not rapidly incapacitate him, he'd have to keep a VERY cool head during a beating, and he'd have have been utterly confident that Martin had no gun or knife.

That's a LOT of assumption and a lot to be cut away by Occam's trusty razor. More likely he wanted to be a hero as you say, but not by killing someone, just by catching them. He wanted to play cop, not play assassin. He thought he'd intimidate someone, get them arrested, and be welcomed by cops with open arms. Martin reacted in an understandable, if unfortunately illegal way, and attacked him. What followed, followed, and led to the creation of a reasonable doubt for a jury.

Zimmerman had no business doing what he did, but Martin really fucked up by turning this into a physical confrontation. If he hadn't, the cops would have shown up, and Zimmerman would have been cited by them for what amounts to stalking behavior. In fact had he ever done something like this before, and later killed under similar circumstances, I would suspect he'd be convicted.

Finally, there was no intruder, what are you talking about?

[Sean Hayden]

The person that trained Zimmerman for neighborhood watch testified that Zimmerman had been instructed to not engage with suspicious persons. Clearly Zimmerman did not think that bit of instruction applied to him. But perhaps Zimmerman had just had enough. He did refer to Martin in the 911 call as another fucking punk that always gets away after all. But maybe that's justifiable. Apparently Zimmerman had been a constant watchman and had already felt it necessary to call 911 dozens of times before for everything ranging from an open garage door to spotting unfamiliar people in his neighborhood. You have to wonder how many of those calls resulted in the arrest of actual criminals?

Keep in mind too that we know Martin was returning from the store when Zimmerman saw him and called 911 to report a suspicious person who he would refer to as another fucking punk that always gets away.

[Sean Hayden]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

The legal argument is that Martin could have simply not spent 40 seconds smacking the crap out of Zimmerman. Being stalked, being confronted, even being scared are not LEGAL excuses to resort to force. He made a choice to do that, and that choice (while it should NOT have led to his death) is what let Zimmerman get off the charges.

If not for that, Zimmerman would have been charged IMMIDIATELY.

Basically, Zimmerman was a fucking negligent wannabe cowboy, but his mistake was legally negated by Martin's choice to jump on him. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they make a felony.

That makes perfect sense to me and I am not upset with the verdict. I still want to talk about just how wrong Zimmerman was though.

[laklak]

If them's the facts, and while it appears a clusterfuck, Z was perhaps in fear of his life and shot M "justifiably". I guess the only unresolved bit is who started the fight. If Z physically started it, then you've got to think he should wear a significant share of blame. But if M started it, then it would seem that Z was within his rights to shoot him.

Those are the facts, or in some cases alleged facts, admitted into evidence, and were the ones used by the jury in their deliberations.

We have only Zimmerman's word that Martin started the fight, and while there is some evidence that supports that claim there is no unequivocal evidence like a video, other witness or clear audio. The jury had to look at the whole picture and make what was undoubtedly a difficult decision given the emotional and political freight. I followed the trial pretty closely, it would be hard not to here because it was all over the news, damn near 24/7. Given what I know I'd have made the same decision.

Was there profiling? There had been a series of break-ins in the 14 months leading up to the shooting, and there is a low-income housing project adjoining Zimmerman's neighborhood. Crime reports indicated young, black males as primary suspects. Were Z's actions the result of racial profiling or reasonable suspicion?

If I see a young, black, hoodie wearing male wandering around in my neighborhood I'm going to watch him rather closely. If I see him wander into my neighbor's back yard I'm going to call the cops and probably get my gun, might even walk out into my back yard and yell at him. Does that make me a racist or a wannabe cop hero? Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of crimes in my area are committed by young black males from the nearby housing projects have any bearing on it?

[Warren Dew]

10. Part of an exchange of words is heard by M's girlfriend on the phone and she testifies to M calling Z a creepy ass cracker and to Z asking M "what are you doing around here?" or words to that effect.

I believe the "creepy ass cracker" comment was made from Martin to his girlfriend, not Martin to Zimmerman.

11. Fight ensues. We do not know who started it.

We know that it started with a blow hard enough to be audible to the girlfriend over the phone. We know that Martin had no injuries except for a minor abrasion on one hand consistent with punching someone and the gunshot wound. The facts do not seem consistent with Zimmerman starting the fight; if the initial blow had been Zimmerman's, there ought to have been a bruise on Martin somewhere.

[Daedalus]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

The legal argument is that Martin could have simply not spent 40 seconds smacking the crap out of Zimmerman. Being stalked, being confronted, even being scared are not LEGAL excuses to resort to force. He made a choice to do that, and that choice (while it should NOT have led to his death) is what let Zimmerman get off the charges.

If not for that, Zimmerman would have been charged IMMIDIATELY.

Basically, Zimmerman was a fucking negligent wannabe cowboy, but his mistake was legally negated by Martin's choice to jump on him. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they make a felony.

That makes perfect sense to me and I am not upset with the verdict. I still want to talk about just how wrong Zimmerman was though.

I completely agree with that, and his behavior should be a fucking object lesson to everyone with a weapon. It's like these civil rights types who are trying to make this "Civil Rights 2.0". I keep hearing them say that if Zimmerman were black, he'd have been handcuffed and dragged away, and imprisoned.

My response is... yeah, probably, and it would have been wrong! Is the goal to make everything unfair for EVERYONE, or to improve matters for black people in the justice system? I wonder if they know?

[Warren Dew]

The person that trained Zimmerman for neighborhood watch testified that Zimmerman had been instructed to not engage with suspicious persons.

And, indeed, Zimmerman did not engage. He just tried to maintain a line of sight so he could tell the police where to go.

[Warren Dew]

It's like these civil rights types who are trying to make this "Civil Rights 2.0". I keep hearing them say that if Zimmerman were black, he'd have been handcuffed and dragged away, and imprisoned.

My response is... yeah, probably, and it would have been wrong! Is the goal to make everything unfair for EVERYONE, or to improve matters for black people in the justice system? I wonder if they know?

Yup. What they ought to be doing is covering the cases where police shoot some innocent black guy because they served a warrant at the wrong address or in other cases of mistaken identity.

[Daedalus]

It's like these civil rights types who are trying to make this "Civil Rights 2.0". I keep hearing them say that if Zimmerman were black, he'd have been handcuffed and dragged away, and imprisoned.

My response is... yeah, probably, and it would have been wrong! Is the goal to make everything unfair for EVERYONE, or to improve matters for black people in the justice system? I wonder if they know?

Yup. What they ought to be doing is covering the cases where police shoot some innocent black guy because they served a warrant at the wrong address or in other cases of mistaken identity.

Exactly, or the state of our prisons filled with black people.

I mean, this is going to backfire... people are going to resent the forced nature of this "movement", others will be afraid of the fallout, and still more will just reject the premise as we have done. The idea that a valid movement can have roots like this is just mindless, and while I appreciate the grief of the family, we shouldn't drag society along for this ride because it keeps viewers tuned in.

I mean really, the amount of news that ISN'T covered as this story gets 24/7 coverage on all major networks is STAGGERING, and really has to be intentional. I get it... a trial gets better ratings than trouble in Egypt, but fuck... there are channels for courttv... like CourtTV!

[mistermack]

You may be right about that theory, but if so it was all perfectly executed and in part a result of Martin's willingness to "play along" with Zimmerman's scenario. Zimmerman would also have to be confident that the person he'd accost would not rapidly incapacitate him, he'd have to keep a VERY cool head during a beating, and he'd have have been utterly confident that Martin had no gun or knife.

That's a LOT of assumption and a lot to be cut away by Occam's trusty razor. More likely he wanted to be a hero as you say, but not by killing someone, just by catching them. He wanted to play cop, not play assassin. He thought he'd intimidate someone, get them arrested, and be welcomed by cops with open arms. Martin reacted in an understandable, if unfortunately illegal way, and attacked him. What followed, followed, and led to the creation of a reasonable doubt for a jury.

Zimmerman had no business doing what he did, but Martin really fucked up by turning this into a physical confrontation. If he hadn't, the cops would have shown up, and Zimmerman would have been cited by them for what amounts to stalking behavior. In fact had he ever done something like this before, and later killed under similar circumstances, I would suspect he'd be convicted.

Finally, there was no intruder, what are you talking about?

You are making the mistake of taking Zimmerman's word as the truth. There's no evidence that Martin attacked him. Why do you believe Zimmerman? Martin's last reported words were, "why are you following me?"
Not normally something you say, when you jump someone from behind.

You say Martin fucked up. No evidence for that. What would anybody do, if someone chased them and grabbed them in the dark?
See, I can make the opposite assumption, about who jumped who. It's easy.

The biggest piece of evidence for Zimmerman's intentions, is his ludicrous screaming. I've seen lots of fights, and never ever witnessed anything like it. People indoors could clearly hear it. And Zimmerman is an ex-bouncer fighting a young kid.

The prosecution never used it, never went with premeditation on Zimmerman's part at all. And thats why I believe that they weren't really trying.

What intruder? It's just a word. Zimmerman reported a suspicious prowler in a gated community. Whether he thought that it was a resident or an intruder doesn't really matter.

[Coito ergo sum]

None of the facts conflict with the picture of Zimmerman carrying a gun in the hope that one day, he can be a "hero" who takes out a punk, and gets attention and praise, and it might even help in his ambition to be a cop.

None of the facts conflict with the picture of Trayvon Martin as an aggressive thug who was out casing houses for robberies, either. Luckily, whether the facts conflict with some weird supposition doesn't much matter.

If he did have this in mind, he would certainly have it in mind that he had to establish a clear case of self-defence.
Hence his call to report the intruder.
Hence his fighting with the intruder, when he could have just pulled the gun and threatened him.
Hence his ludicrous over-the-top screaming, as he was struggling with Martin.
And hence his waiting around for the cops.

That's all interesting speculation. However, that sort of thing was not presented by the prosecution as the recitation of events, and no evidence was presented to show that was what happened.

All of this matches the scenario of a pathetic wanker with a gun who wanted to blow away a punk and be a hero.

...which of course, "does not conflict" with someone being lawfully entitled to use self-defense when attacked.

And that's what WOULD have happened, if the victim had been a thief. Nobody would have given a shit. It very nearly did happen that way.

Nonsense. Many prosecutions have been successfully made against people who shot thieves.

I don't think this prosecution was ever designed to succeed. It was just going through the motions, to get the authorities off the hook.

Nonsense. The best way for them to have been off the hook was to do what the first prosecutor did. Not prosecute. Or, Angela Corey should have given the matter to the Grand Jury and let them decide. Instead, she filed an affidavit of probable cause which excluded most of the evidence (favorable to Zimmerman) and moved forward with the prosecution, come hell or high water.

I could have mounted a better prosecution case in my sleep, than they did.

If you had different evidence, maybe. But, I seriously doubt you could have been able to do better with the actual evidence available to them in this case. But, pray tell, what would you have done differently? Called different witnesses?

But now they can pretend that the wheels of justice have turned, and nobody was negligent, first time around.
And the dummies are lapping it up.

This case never should have been brought. The only reason it was brought was for political purposes. It's a shame, but not for the reasons the dummies squawking about the verdict.

[Coito ergo sum]

If them's the facts, and while it appears a clusterfuck, Z was perhaps in fear of his life and shot M "justifiably". I guess the only unresolved bit is who started the fight. If Z physically started it, then you've got to think he should wear a significant share of blame. But if M started it, then it would seem that Z was within his rights to shoot him.

Those are the facts, or in some cases alleged facts, admitted into evidence, and were the ones used by the jury in their deliberations.

I was trying hard to refer only to the 911 audiotape and the evidence provided by the prosecution, and I did not include any mere defense allegations. I want to stress that. My recitation of facts were the facts (essentially) at the time the PROSECUTION rested. It was the State's case.

If I were on the jury and the case sent to me without the defense putting on a case at all. If it went to the jury after the Prosecution just took its best shot.....I would have to acquit because there was reasonable doubt already at that point. All the prosecution did was succeed in putting on a plausible case suggesting that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. They did not make that case "beyond reasonable doubt." At all. Wasn't even close.

Did anyone else catch Angela Corey (the state prosecutor) and her little dig at the jury during her press conference? She added a bit of snark by thanking the jury for taking 16 hours" to deliberate "all the complex facts and evidence..." LOL. We're supposed to think she's sincere? That she really thinks this was a complex case, and that 16 hours was a long time to deliberate? Of course that isn't what she meant. She was implying that the jury made too quick a decision and didn't deliberate enough. She's a fucking cunt of the highest magnitude.