Unarmed teen shooting: Is Florida law to blame?

[kiki5711]

How do you explain that Zimmerman was seen on his back with Marton on top punching him?

That was not said in any audio phone calls. It was just a print in the paper.

And good gracious, Zimmerman with a gun has way much more leeway in stopping him, unless Martin had some super kung fu moves.

[Seth]

But back to my real question: What precludes the possibility that both Martin and Zimmerman misbehaved on the night in question?

Nothing precludes that at all, and is quite likely the real situation. But someone is unnecessarily dead now because of the actions of a self-appointed vigilante. That's wrong.

Or, someone is dead by their own fault because they brutally attacked another person and put them in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, which makes the shooting legal and justifiable. And there's a difference between "vigilantism" and "vigilance." Zimmerman may have merely been being vigilant and interested in protecting his community, which he has ever legal right to do, or he may have been a "vigilante" if he shot down Martin in cold blood without adequate legal justification for doing so.

We'll find out which at trial, if it goes to trial, which it may not.

[Seth]

But back to my real question: What precludes the possibility that both Martin and Zimmerman misbehaved on the night in question?

Nothing precludes that at all, and is quite likely the real situation. But someone is unnecessarily dead now because of the actions of a self-appointed vigilante. That's wrong.

This is not a logical statement, strictly speaking. To be fair to every one involved and logical possibility, it should read more along the lines that someone is unnecessarily dead because of the actions of a self-appointed vigilante, or the actions of a wanna-be gangsta, or the unfortunate co-occurance of both. Your statement ignores the other possibilities and convicts Zimmerman sans compelling evidence.

Well, strictly speaking, you're right. But the question posed in the title of the thread is whether the stand your ground law is (partially?) to blame. I say yes, the stand your ground law in combination with concealed carry is setting up the situation where a self-appointed vigilante feels empowered to fabricate an unnecessary confrontation in order to self-justify the use of deadly force. That's wrong and corrosive to civilized society.

Or, the Stand Your Ground law merely acknowledges the fundamental human right of every human being to take immediate action in self defense without having to give undue consideration to the health or safety of their attacker, which is beneficial to society in many way, not the least of which is that it puts the fear of death into criminals who attack people who now understand that they can and might be shot dead on the spot if they attack the wrong someone.

I favor the latter interpretation.

[kiki5711]

You can hear on the tape that he was walking to his girlfriend's house and talking on the phone? Really?

that was not on the tape but was corraberated by the girlfriend and I assume both families.

If he was there to rob a house, it's highly unlikly that he'd be talking to his girlfriend who lives in that neighborhood, on his cell, unless she was in on the roberry as well.

[kiki5711]

But back to my real question: What precludes the possibility that both Martin and Zimmerman misbehaved on the night in question?

Nothing precludes that at all, and is quite likely the real situation. But someone is unnecessarily dead now because of the actions of a self-appointed vigilante. That's wrong.

Or, someone is dead by their own fault because they brutally attacked another person and put them in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, which makes the shooting legal and justifiable. And there's a difference between "vigilantism" and "vigilance." Zimmerman may have merely been being vigilant and interested in protecting his community, which he has ever legal right to do, or he may have been a "vigilante" if he shot down Martin in cold blood without adequate legal justification for doing so.

We'll find out which at trial, if it goes to trial, which it may not.

We're not talking about "other" possibilites and potential victims. It's about THIS case.

Zimmerman was in position of power, given to himself, by himself, and carried a gun to patrol a neighborhood apparently with no training. With his history of violence in other instances, I think if he was interviewd and checked out by the neighborhood commetee properly, they might have had doubt to give him this responsibility, or at least ask him to get proper training.

[Coito ergo sum]

How do you explain that Zimmerman was seen on his back with Marton on top punching him?

That was not said in any audio phone calls. It was just a print in the paper.

Same with your statement that he was walking to his girlfriend's house and was walking on the sidewalk, etc.

And good gracious, Zimmerman with a gun has way much more leeway in stopping him, unless Martin had some super kung fu moves.

Different issue. You said you were relying only on the audio, and most of what you relied on was interpretation and outside material. Then you suggested that I am limited to the audio.

[Coito ergo sum]

You can hear on the tape that he was walking to his girlfriend's house and talking on the phone? Really?

that was not on the tape but was corraberated by the girlfriend and I assume both families.

We have witness testimony corroborating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. So, you're weighing the evidence, and preferring one witness over another.

If he was there to rob a house, it's highly unlikly that he'd be talking to his girlfriend who lives in that neighborhood, on his cell, unless she was in on the roberry as well.

Maybe, maybe not.

[mistermack]

I haven't seen this till now.
The video tapes from Zimmermans processing show a very different picture from what he painted.
This is the UNALTERED video.
It shows Zimmerman clearly has NO visible injury to the back of his head, not even a scratch.
Also there is no blood anywhere on his clothes, in spite of a claimed broken nose, and ferocious beating to the face.
Also there is no sign of mud or grass stains on his clothes, as claimed, and incredibly, there is no blood from Martin, even though he was supposedly sitting on top of Zimmerman when he was fatally shot.




I've seen some fights in my time, and compared to what I've seen, Zimmerman is completely unmarked.

And if this investigation was take seriously, HOW COME there is only automatic video for evidence?
Someone has been killed. Does that not require a little more effort, such as a normal stills photo of the alleged injuries? And of the alleged grass stains? And of the bleeding nose?

It sounds worse all the time, and it's pretty clear that some people got together to let this slide. None of it is normal police procedure. After all, the investigating officer found Zimmermans story unconvincing and wanted to charge him. But after a quick conference with the police chief, the state attorney and another person, that was overruled.
After that point, it appears that they didn't want to know, and began trying to get witnesses to change their accounts.
Very murky. Not connected with Zimmermans dad being a former magistrate, by any chance?

[Seth]

I haven't seen this till now.
The video tapes from Zimmermans processing show a very different picture from what he painted.
This is the UNALTERED video.
It shows Zimmerman clearly has NO visible injury to the back of his head, not even a scratch.
Also there is no blood anywhere on his clothes, in spite of a claimed broken nose, and ferocious beating to the face.
Also there is no sign of mud or grass stains on his clothes, as claimed, and incredibly, there is no blood from Martin, even though he was supposedly sitting on top of Zimmerman when he was fatally shot.




I've seen some fights in my time, and compared to what I've seen, Zimmerman is completely unmarked.

And if this investigation was take seriously, HOW COME there is only automatic video for evidence?
Someone has been killed. Does that not require a little more effort, such as a normal stills photo of the alleged injuries? And of the alleged grass stains? And of the bleeding nose?

It sounds worse all the time, and it's pretty clear that some people got together to let this slide. None of it is normal police procedure. After all, the investigating officer found Zimmermans story unconvincing and wanted to charge him. But after a quick conference with the police chief, the state attorney and another person, that was overruled.
After that point, it appears that they didn't want to know, and began trying to get witnesses to change their accounts.
Very murky. Not connected with Zimmermans dad being a former magistrate, by any chance?

You can be reasonably sure that there are dozens or hundreds of still photos taken by the police. But they are evidence and cannot be released to the public before the case has been resolved. All that will come out at the trial, and the DA will review all the evidence, both at the scene and elsewhere, in making a decision. Keep in mind that Zimmerman may have been cleaned up somewhat on the scene by paramedics (not sure of this) and that it's not necessary that he be beaten to a bloody pulp before he's justified in shooting his attacker. But if a proper crimescene investigation was NOT done, then the blame lies with the police and head should roll. But Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. That's the way it works, and if the police did not gather sufficient credible evidence to convict him, he will, and should, walk free.

In my professional opinion, if I were on the ground, on my back, on concrete, with an assailant on top of me who banged my skull against the concrete even ONCE, I would most certainly reasonably believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, particularly if he was shouting at me that he was going to kill me. ONE BLOW like that can fracture the skull and cause death or permanent brain damage, much less multiple blows, and if I'm knocked unconscious by the first blow, then the assailant can proceed to kill me and I'll be helpless. In such a case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had a gun (which I always do) and I could draw and fire it, I would do so without any hesitation at all and I believe I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

All that's required is a "reasonable belief" that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. At that instant deadly force is authorized.

Determining whether a particular person's belief was reasonable is a matter of investigation and, perhaps, for the triers of fact at a trial to examine and rule upon.

[kiki5711]

We have witness testimony corroborating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. So, you're weighing the evidence, and preferring one witness over another

who is "we"? and who are the "witnesses" was it before the shooting or after or at any other moment we don't know about?

[kiki5711]

In my professional opinion, if I were on the ground, on my back, on concrete, with an assailant on top of me who banged my skull against the concrete even ONCE, I would most certainly reasonably believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, particularly if he was shouting at me that he was going to kill me. ONE BLOW like that can fracture the skull and cause death or permanent brain damage, much less multiple blows, and if I'm knocked unconscious by the first blow, then the assailant can proceed to kill me and I'll be helpless. In such a case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had a gun (which I always do) and I could draw and fire it, I would do so without any hesitation at all and I believe I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

All that's required is a "reasonable belief" that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. At that instant deadly force is authorized.

Determining whether a particular person's belief was reasonable is a matter of investigation and, perhaps, for the triers of fact at a trial to examine and rule upon.

You're getting way off the trail Seth. Your talking phantom possibilities/probabilities....etc....and you must know that every case has to be investigated in different ways since they are all under different circumstances.

[Coito ergo sum]

We have witness testimony corroborating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. So, you're weighing the evidence, and preferring one witness over another

who is "we"? and who are the "witnesses" was it before the shooting or after or at any other moment we don't know about?

We all do, the police, the prosecutors, the newspapers. The same folks that have the testimony you referred to.

[Coito ergo sum]

In my professional opinion, if I were on the ground, on my back, on concrete, with an assailant on top of me who banged my skull against the concrete even ONCE, I would most certainly reasonably believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, particularly if he was shouting at me that he was going to kill me. ONE BLOW like that can fracture the skull and cause death or permanent brain damage, much less multiple blows, and if I'm knocked unconscious by the first blow, then the assailant can proceed to kill me and I'll be helpless. In such a case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had a gun (which I always do) and I could draw and fire it, I would do so without any hesitation at all and I believe I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

All that's required is a "reasonable belief" that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. At that instant deadly force is authorized.

Determining whether a particular person's belief was reasonable is a matter of investigation and, perhaps, for the triers of fact at a trial to examine and rule upon.

You're getting way off the trail Seth. Your talking phantom possibilities/probabilities....etc....and you must know that every case has to be investigated in different ways since they are all under different circumstances.

He actually isn't. The possibility that Martin was doing that to Zimmerman is not a phantom possibility. It's in the police file. And, that is why the case has to be investigated, since the circumstances aren't as clear as you make them out to be.

[Ronja]

In my professional opinion, if I were on the ground, on my back, on concrete, with an assailant on top of me who banged my skull against the concrete even ONCE, I would most certainly reasonably believe I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, particularly if he was shouting at me that he was going to kill me. ONE BLOW like that can fracture the skull and cause death or permanent brain damage, much less multiple blows, and if I'm knocked unconscious by the first blow, then the assailant can proceed to kill me and I'll be helpless. In such a case there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had a gun (which I always do) and I could draw and fire it, I would do so without any hesitation at all and I believe I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

All that's required is a "reasonable belief" that your life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. At that instant deadly force is authorized.

Determining whether a particular person's belief was reasonable is a matter of investigation and, perhaps, for the triers of fact at a trial to examine and rule upon.

You're getting way off the trail Seth. Your talking phantom possibilities/probabilities....etc....and you must know that every case has to be investigated in different ways since they are all under different circumstances.

Kiki, I linked earlier on to a police report that the Orlando Sentinel had published. In it an officer described their observations of injuries on Zimmerman, which would be in line with the scenario that Seth described. So in this case (the part that you quoted and commented on) I don't think Seth is getting way off the trail at all.

I can dig up that link again - just a sec.

Edit: here http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012 ... 132322.pdf

[kiki5711]

I think the emergency responders should be subpoenad to testify of what Exactly was the condition and scenario, once they arrived.

The police report in my opinion is not reliable because I think they knew this was going to be messy.