CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

Read the timeline and look at the maps that have been linked to? Watch the video? It is VERY possible Martin made it to the house he was staying at and went back after Zimmerman. If that is the case (as it appears to be) your 'following in a dark area' theory (and that is all it is because known evidence does not support it) goes out the window.

So let me get this straight, because Martin has gone back to confront Zimmerman for following him, it's his own fault for whatever took place, even if Zimmerman was the one who actually provoked the fight?

I would think that Zimmerman's actions could only be condemned or justified on the basis of whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted. There would be only two people that knew exactly what was said before the fight started, and one of them is dead.

Andrew1975 wrote:

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

If someone is following you do you just go and attack them? Or do you maybe threaten them and tell them to go away. Again we don't really know what happened but we have a guy whose history is not of a race hater, but actually a equal opportunity helper, and a kid who in the past had just randomly punched strangers.

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

biccat wrote:Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:

If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

Maybe.
For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

I also want very much for this prosecutor to HAVE to argue for the duty of retreat that lefty gun haters don't seem to think exists in the SYG law, that it isn't a "free pass" to kill people in the streets, and most of all that it works.

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

So let me get this straight, because Martin has gone back to confront Zimmerman for following him, it's his own fault for whatever took place, even if Zimmerman was the one who actually provoked the fight?

How did he provoke the fight? Following someone is not a crime. The only story we have is that Zimmerman followed him and Martin attacked him.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

Martin had a habit of randomly beating up strangers in the street?

That's not what this is about at all, the fact is that Zimmerman did follow Martin. The fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin. What happened in between is what is up for debate, and so far shows support for Zimmerman's side (if only because Martin is dead).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

Martin had a habit of randomly beating up strangers in the street?

He beat up a bus driver for no reason didn't he?

Andrew1975 wrote:

He beat up a bus driver for no reason didn't he?

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
That's not what this is about at all, the fact is that Zimmerman did follow Martin. The fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin. What happened in between is what is up for debate, and so far shows support for Zimmerman's side (if only because Martin is dead).

Wow, alright, I've just realized that no one can agree on Martin's height or weight, despite the existence of an easily measured corpse.

Good job, media, good job.

AustonT wrote:
It seems very likely that if I was attacked in the dark by an unarmed person, thrown to the ground and called for help that my wife would immediately respond with one or more rounds from her own firearm. Hopefully from a position of at least partial cover and safety and while on the phone with, or calling 911, and without hitting me; but that's asking an awful lot.

Yes, always watch Da Wimminz. They are packing and they are mean!

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

So you think breaking someones nose and bashing their head into the ground is slight provocation? Good to know. I mean killing someone with your hands is so 2000s. That never happens anymore.

Not that any of this deserves a death penalty but on one hand you have:

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school three times in the months before he was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, it emerged today.
The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.
It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.
The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 pieces of women's jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a 'marijuana pipe' and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.

And on the other hand you have a guy who regularly did charity work in the African American community and was a member of the neighborhood watch.
It looks like he may have had some issues in the past with his ex claiming domestic abuse and resisting arrest though so he's no angel either.

I mean yes it's biased only in the same way as when your chickens are missing do you blame the dog or the fox? The dog could have done it, but most of the time it's the fox and the facts (one sided story and physical evidence) point to the fox.

Good job, media, good job.

As always newsertainmnet fails again!

Frazzled wrote:

AustonT wrote:
It seems very likely that if I was attacked in the dark by an unarmed person, thrown to the ground and called for help that my wife would immediately respond with one or more rounds from her own firearm. Hopefully from a position of at least partial cover and safety and while on the phone with, or calling 911, and without hitting me; but that's asking an awful lot.

Yes, always watch Da Wimminz. They are packing and they are mean!

Mine took a fair amount of coaxing and when the shooting happened last year she was shocked enough to become a regular carrier, since I was refusing to handle handguns. Now its part of her routine and I am glad for it.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

So you think breaking someones nose and bashing their head into the ground is slight provocation? Good to know. I mean killing someone with your hands is so 2000s. That never happens anymore.

You might be on to something if there was strong evidence that Martin just leapt out of nowhere and started bashing Zimmerman, as opposed to the confrontation ending on one or the other (and it is impossible to definitively say who) provoking them into a fight.

Not that any of this deserves a death penalty but on one hand you have:

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school three times in the months before he was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, it emerged today.
The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.
It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.
The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 pieces of women's jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a 'marijuana pipe' and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.

And on the other hand you have a guy who regularly did charity work in the African American community and was a member of the neighborhood watch.
It looks like he may have had some issues in the past with his ex claiming domestic abuse and resisting arrest though.

I mean yes it's biased only in the same way as when your chickens are missing do you blame the dog or the fox? The dog could have done it, but most of the time it's the fox and the facts (one sided story and physical evidence) point to the fox.

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

But it does show a history of violence and a different reality from the poor little boy just out for some Skittles.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:But it does show a history of violence and a different reality from the poor little boy just out for some Skittles.

I'd argue that showing the victim had a history of violence is a matter for the court to take into account. The police accepting Zimmerman's story on it's face value is exactly why there is such outrage in the media at all.

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

Its actually a fair description of the two. I never said he had free reign to just hawl off and shoot people. The currently supported senerio is that Martin Confronted Zimmerman and initiated the assault. If that turns out to be true than it is Martin's fault that he got shot and Zimmerman had every right to believe his life was in danger and therefore every right to defend himself in any way that he saw fit. Look at my posts I'm saying there should be a full investigation of what happened. You are the one holding Zimmerman over the flames like everyone else that is looking to lynch him regardless of the facts.

I'd argue that showing the victim had a history of violence is a matter for the court to take into account. The police accepting Zimmerman's story on it's face value is exactly why there is such outrage in the media at all.

But they didn't just accept it at face value. They looked at the crime scene (I'll admit rather cavalierly at first), took Zimmerman in ans interrogated him and the story made sense. If anyone should be criticized here it may be the police procedure. However after further investigation, the story still seams to fit.

Ronin-Sage wrote:1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.

2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).

That's not really answering the question. If the facts come out as Zimmerman described them, do you think he should be convicted?

Someone has already said you don't get a right to self defense against an unarmed person, I'm just curious where others stand on the issue.

AustonT wrote:For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

AustonT wrote:Biccat since you're here:
How the hell did the charges get form this...to 2nd degree murder?

There's at least a colorable argument that 2nd degree murder will stick (it passes the laugh test), so the Prosecutor is charging as much as she can. If she charged manslaughter, it changes the plea situation.

I suspect the prosecutor is bluffing to prevent this from going to trial. Especially given some of the opinions I've heard from some former prosecutors. The indictment is not just bad, it's really bad.

Andrew1975 wrote:

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

Its actually a fair description of the two. I never said he had free reign to just hawl off and shoot people. The currently supported senerio is that Martin Confronted Zimmerman and initiated the assault. If that turns out to be true than it is Martin's fault that he got shot. Look at my posts I'm saying there should be a full investigation of what happened. You are the one holding Zimmerman over the flames like everyone else that is looking to lynch him regardless of the facts.

Funny.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I would think that Zimmerman's actions could only be condemned or justified on the basis of whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted. There would be only two people that knew exactly what was said before the fight started, and one of them is dead.

whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted.

Yes but like many people on this thread you might see following Martin as legitimate provocation.....which it isn't. So what are you talking about? There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Again it is completely possible and even smart that if Zimmerman shot Martin illegally that Zimmerman would then bust his own nose, bash his own skull into the ground and rub his jeans in the grass. It's completely possible possibly even likely. But the investigation does not seam to point that way.

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Sure there is, not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Sure there is, not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Legally there is no excuse for assault except castle, no? People are basically allowed to provoke you all they want. Which again doesn't seam the case here anyway, none of the neighbors reported a shouting match or anything. Just Zimmerman screaming for help.

Of course if Zimmerman pulled first, I could see attacking him out of self defense, again though not the story and I doubt provable either way.

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

1. I do.
2. Maybe. The more that comes out the more I think: Yes.
3. At this point with the information on hand: No. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high hurdle, as it should be.

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Bromsy wrote:

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Such a thing is about as real as a low powered rifle.

I suppose I should say that one of those is real, just not in the media.

Bromsy wrote:

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Shoot to 'stop the threat' is always how I've heard the normal approach described.

Andrew1975 wrote:

whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted.

Yes but like many people on this thread you might see following Martin as legitimate provocation.....which it isn't.

I'd say having someone follow you is enough reason to confront them, though not outright assault them.

So what are you talking about? There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Not at all, if Zimmerman wilfully provoked Martin into throwing the first punch (and there are countless ways in which that can be done).

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances). They certainly wouldn't be entitled to draw a gun and shoot you in response, unless you were acting in a manner that indicated you weren't going to stop until they were dead.

Again it is completely possible and even smart that if Zimmerman shot Martin illegally that Zimmerman would then bust his own nose, bash his own skull into the ground and rub his jeans in the grass. It's completely possible possibly even likely. But the investigation does not seam to point that way.

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone! Wile E Coyote, Super genius that's who.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone!

Are you going to answer the rest of my post?

Zimmerman wouldn't have had to have planned this out to make him liable. He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone!

Are you going to answer the rest of my post?

Zimmerman wouldn't have had to have planned this out to make him liable. He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

Right but I'm saying that is just as likely as him covering up an illegal shot by breaking his own nose. What is his motive to force a confrontation? The guy is playing at being a superhero, I just don't see him forcing the confrontation. Again his past shows his character, and that is of a dogooder. I mean the guy probably saw himself as The Tick!

Andrew1975 wrote:

Right but I'm saying that is just as likely as him covering up an illegal shot by breaking his own nose.

You're saying that it's just as likely that he may have provoked the confrontation as covering up shooting him in cold blood? I must be misreading your argument, because you can't be positing something so ridiculous.

What is his motive to force a confrontation? The guy is playing at being a superhero, I just don't see him forcing the confrontation. Again his past shows his character, and that is of a dogooder. I mean the guy probably saw himself as The Tick!

And odds are he had the view that Martin was some scumbag casing a place out. If he was confronted by Martin, it's very possible that he was the one who lost his temper first, then took it too far.

Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Where are you getting that. He has a history of being suspicious of, well, suspicious people. I have seen he has made like 40 calls to the police and something like 11 of them were about dark skinned individuals. That's hardly a high average or out of proportion. In fact that means 75% of the time he was calling about people that were not dark skinned.

You're saying that it's just as likely that he may have provoked the confrontation as covering up shooting him in cold blood? I must be misreading your argument, because you can't be positing something so ridiculous.

That's exactly what I am saying. Its rather unlikely that he did either of the two. I find it more likely that he would panic before a real confrontation and shoot Martin and then cover it up, than sit their and bait the guy into a confrontation. Makes more sense to me. They are both more unlikely than what he described had happened.

The most likely way I see Zimmerman being at fault is if he pulled out his gun first basically forcing Martin to be defensive. Which is possible, but not what the investigation has shown.

You're suggesting that he had it all planned out, as opposed to lost his temper which is much more likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Where are you getting that. He has a history of being suspicious of, well, suspicious people. I have seen he has made like 40 calls to the police and something like 11 of them were about dark skinned individuals. That's hardly a high average or out of proportion. In fact that means 75% of the time he was calling about people that were not dark skinned.

Be careful what you say, taken out of context or forgetting to put the rest of that paragraph there would have made this seem like a really, really awful comment.

I will have to try to find the source, I remember reading about it early on during this whole affair. I will see what I can do there.

d-usa wrote:I will have to try to find the source, I remember reading about it early on during this whole affair. I will see what I can do there.

He had a history of calling the police, occasionally on African American individuals who fit a certain profile( read: "gangbangers").

As awful as it sounds, there's a reason that people get suspicious of individuals fitting certain profiles. It's ingrained upon the psyche, usually from a negative experience with someone fitting the profile.

But that still does not mean that Zimmerman went out of his way to provoke a fight with Martin or that this whole thing is a case of a hate crime.

I don't think that this case fits a hate crime scenario at all. I do think that if there is a certain profile that influenced Zs mindset then hi might have been more aggressive in the way he confronted the 'gangbanger' which may have easily resulted in a more aggressive response from Martin, resulting in more escalation from Z.

I think the ultimate question will be decided on two main points:

1) who was the initial agressor, who made the first confrontational move, who initiated the contact.

2) if Z started this thing, can he claim self defense to protect himself from a beating that may have been caused by Zs action. Can Z shoot Marting for beating him, if M was beating him to protect himself from Z?

You're suggesting that he had it all planned out, as opposed to lost his temper which is much more likely.

I'm suggesting that it probably when down the way he described.

I'm also saying the most likely other alternative is that Zimmerman playing at being BATMAN could have been overzealous, pulled his gun out in an attempt to intimidate Martin into sitting tight until the authorities came. Martin may have seen that as provocation, not knowing Zimmerman's intentions Martin charges Zimmerman because he(Martin) rightly feared for his life because some stranger pulled a gun on him.

We know from a witness the two were seen wrestling on the ground before the shot was fired, so Zimmerman did not shoot him before the physical altercation but only once it had already occurred. So I kind of doubt he pulled the gun before the confrontation started, but it's possible.

Let's say Zimmerman comes up to Martin and says something as provocative as "Hey Nagger, get your ghetto thug butt out of my neighborhood.....or some such"? As stupid and ugly as that is, does that give Martin just cause to physically attack Zimmerman????? Not in the legal world as far as I know.

d-usa wrote:I don't think that this case fits a hate crime scenario at all. I do think that if there is a certain profile that influenced Zs mindset then hi might have been more aggressive in the way he confronted the 'gangbanger' which may have easily resulted in a more aggressive response from Martin, resulting in more escalation from Z.

I think the ultimate question will be decided on two main points:

1) who was the initial agressor, who made the first confrontational move, who initiated the contact.

2) if Z started this thing, can he claim self defense to protect himself from a beating that may have been caused by Zs action. Can Z shoot Marting for beating him, if M was beating him to protect himself from Z?

Those two are going to be decided quite likely upon how the timeline adds up.

If, in fact, Martin had enough time to go home and then return to confront/assault Zimmerman?
Yeah. That's Martin provoking the situation.

If so, yeah, he shouldn't have pulled that vigilante act, going to confront the shady guy in the neighborhood.

Who am I talking about again?

Mannahnin wrote:If so, yeah, he shouldn't have pulled that vigilante act, going to confront the shady guy in the neighborhood.

Who am I talking about again?

I chuckled a bit at this.

Serious mode on:
The way it has been made to sound factoring in the phone call Martin was on with his girlfriend, Martin felt that "he was being followed" and then chose to confront the guy rather than just go home and call the cops.
We don't actually know what was happening in the confrontation, and that's where the meat of the situation comes from.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If so, yeah, he shouldn't have pulled that vigilante act, going to confront the shady guy in the neighborhood.

Who am I talking about again?

I chuckled a bit at this.

Serious mode on:
The way it has been made to sound factoring in the phone call Martin was on with his girlfriend, Martin felt that "he was being followed" and then chose to confront the guy rather than just go home and call the cops.
We don't actually know what was happening in the confrontation, and that's where the meat of the situation comes from.

And there is really an incredible amount of room for all kinds of speculation in there.

One thing that comes to mind, having wrestled quite a few bad guys with the cops, is that it is kinda hard to pull out a gun in the middle of a fistfight. If Martin is sitting on top of Z, bashing his head into the concrete, it would be pretty hard to get your hand into your waistband to pull a gun out of your holster (that Martin would be sitting on top off).

Which for me raises the possibility that the gun was drawn before the actual physical fight started, which is of course 100% circumstantial and way beyond reasonable doubt.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Legally there is no excuse for assault except castle, no?

And immediately prior assault, which isn't limited to physical contact.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Legally there is no excuse for assault except castle, no?

And immediately prior assault, which isn't limited to physical contact.

So preemptive strikes are legal? I'm not so sure about that.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Ok explain how that would apply here.

If you thought I had been following you, you might reasonably presume that I intended you harm (to commit battery), especially in a dicey neighborhood; which this apparently was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
So preemptive strikes are legal? I'm not so sure about that.

If I pull a gun on you, and you kill me, you're probably going to be found innocent despite preemption.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Ok explain how that would apply here.

If you thought I had been following you, you might reasonably presume that I intended you harm (to commit battery), especially in a dicey neighborhood; which this apparently was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
So preemptive strikes are legal? I'm not so sure about that.

If I pull a gun on you, and you kill me, you're probably going to be found innocent despite preemption.

If I had been following you closely maybe. If I pulled a gun defiantly. But neither of these seams the case. I still don't think you can assault someone just for following you as long as they are keeping their distance, which it appears Zimmerman was. I don't think your argument holds water here.

It could be a dicey neighborhood, but it was a gated community. I usually find these pretty safe because they are usually filled with frightened white people that are suspicious of everybody.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If I had been following you closely maybe. If I pulled a gun defiantly. But neither of these seams the case. I still don't think you can assault someone just for following you as long as they are keeping their distance, which it appears Zimmerman was. I don't think your argument holds water here.

Sure you can, so long as the jury/judge agrees.

You're also still showing a trust with respect to Zimmerman.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It could be a dicey neighborhood, but it was a gated community. I usually find these pretty safe because they are usually filled with frightened white people that are suspicious of everybody.

Sure, because feeling safe could never increase feelings of fear.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
If I had been following you closely maybe. If I pulled a gun defiantly. But neither of these seams the case. I still don't think you can assault someone just for following you as long as they are keeping their distance, which it appears Zimmerman was. I don't think your argument holds water here.

Sure you can, so long as the jury/judge agrees.

You're also still showing a trust with respect to Zimmerman.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It could be a dicey neighborhood, but it was a gated community. I usually find these pretty safe because they are usually filled with frightened white people that are suspicious of everybody.

Sure, because feeling safe could never increase feelings of fear.

I just think you would have to be a complete idiot to follow a suspect so closely, it could be the case but it's unlikely. I mean Zimmerman could be an idiot, but is he completely brain dead?

I never said there was no fear, in fact usually those places are full of fear and phobia, but that does not make it dicey. Cabrini Green was dicey, south central LA is dicey. Most gated communities are Disneyland by comparison. Its also perspective. If I was Martin I might consider gated communities dicey just because of the prejudices that can run high in such places, but without knowing more about that community I can't say. Generally though gated communities are pretty safe and you don't have to worry about getting jumped.

Andrew1975 wrote:
= I mean Zimmerman could be an idiot, but is he completely brain dead?

Average people are average, and average isn't very good.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
= I mean Zimmerman could be an idiot, but is he completely brain dead?

Average people are average, and average isn't very good.

True, but the guy has seams the type to have watched plenty of Law and Order and probably fancies himself a junior G man. He should know not to follow a suspect so close, but maybe not. The average human is not so bad, just banal, dimwitted, unobservant and silly, not completely idiotic.

I won't lie, what you describe seems completely idiotic.

Zimmerman makes me think of Seth Rogen in Observe and Report.

Someone has already said you don't get a right to self defense against an unarmed person, I'm just curious where others stand on the issue.

I sure as hell do. An unarmed person can still kill you. It has to be reasonable. its reasonable that an old person, infirm person, normal woman, etc. all have a reaonable fear that an unarmed young physically fit male could in fact kill or seriously harm them.

If you're Smokin Joe Frasier its not reasonable. Mr. Magoo on the other hand can blast you to hell.
(bonus points to people who don't have to look these guys up on the intranetz).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Its Hollywood nonsense. Anie Oakley and Seal Team Super Ninja 12 can do that. The rest of us hacks don't train like that.

Purely out of curiosity, where do the "shoot to injure" proponents think I should be trying to place my shots? Which part of the body?

No one who knows anything about firearms thinks you shoot to injure. Anyone who's had even basic training knows you shoot center of mass. We can safely leave that aside, I think.

There's a ton of unknowns in this case. Maybe Martin did attack Zimmerman, and maybeZ feared for his life. It just seems really implausible to me. Z's a grown, armed adult. Even the more "gangsta" shots of Martin out there still show a skinny teen. In a physical confrontation I'm really not sure how a firearm would have wound up in play.

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances).

I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, and likely Australia, thats exactly wrong.

They certainly wouldn't be entitled to draw a gun and shoot you in response, unless you were acting in a manner that indicated you weren't going to stop until they were dead.

Again you're wrong. If they say something about your mother and you procede to start to beat them to death, they can stop the attack. that means stopping you. pragmatically however, the court/jury will look at the circumstances here and it will become much harder to substantiate the heavy burden of proving self defense.

Mannahnin wrote:No one who knows anything about firearms thinks you shoot to injure. Anyone who's had even basic training knows you shoot center of mass. We can safely leave that aside, I think.

There's a ton of unknowns in this case. Maybe Martin did attack Zimmerman, and maybeZ feared for his life. It just seems really implausible to me. Z's a grown, armed adult. Even the more "gangsta" shots of Martin out there still show a skinny teen. In a physical confrontation I'm really not sure how a firearm would have wound up in play.

After your nose is broken and while your head is being bounced on the side walk a few times and you may question your ability to win the physical confrontation with nothing but your hands as you lay flat on your back...

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Except he is one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If so, yeah, he shouldn't have pulled that vigilante act, going to confront the shady guy in the neighborhood.

Who am I talking about again?

Slim Shady?
The question you have to ask yourself, is, is it the real Slim Shady?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If so, yeah, he shouldn't have pulled that vigilante act, going to confront the shady guy in the neighborhood.

Who am I talking about again?

I chuckled a bit at this.

Serious mode on:
The way it has been made to sound factoring in the phone call Martin was on with his girlfriend, Martin felt that "he was being followed" and then chose to confront the guy rather than just go home and call the cops.
We don't actually know what was happening in the confrontation, and that's where the meat of the situation comes from.

And there is really an incredible amount of room for all kinds of speculation in there.

One thing that comes to mind, having wrestled quite a few bad guys with the cops, is that it is kinda hard to pull out a gun in the middle of a fistfight. If Martin is sitting on top of Z, bashing his head into the concrete, it would be pretty hard to get your hand into your waistband to pull a gun out of your holster (that Martin would be sitting on top off).

Which for me raises the possibility that the gun was drawn before the actual physical fight started, which is of course 100% circumstantial and way beyond reasonable doubt.

Indeed, thats the problem. We have extremely incomplete info. Hence the need for a trial of fact.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Except he is one.

Maybe darker skinned would have been the better choice of words

But again, I don't think he shot the kid because he was black. I do think that he thought that the kid was a black kid up to no good, and that perception may have influenced his emotions, his mindset, and the way he approached the situation.

Seaward wrote:Purely out of curiosity, where do the "shoot to injure" proponents think I should be trying to place my shots? Which part of the body?

Left middle toe. But you can only nick it, like an Indian Rope Burn sort of shot. Shouldn't be a problem no?

CptJake wrote:After your nose is broken and while your head is being bounced on the side walk a few times and you may question your ability to win the physical confrontation with nothing but your hands...

If that accurately describes one's position, sans helmet, I don't think you're going to be able to pull a gun. I've never had my head bounced off a sidewalk a few times, but I've hit the pavement and am pretty confident that if my head hit repeatedly, I wouldn't be pulling a gun or shooting anyone.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Except he is one.

Maybe darker skinned would have been the better choice of words

But again, I don't think he shot the kid because he was black. I do think that he thought that the kid was a black kid up to no good, and that perception may have influenced his emotions, his mindset, and the way he approached the situation.

Agreed.

Mannahnin wrote:

CptJake wrote:After your nose is broken and while your head is being bounced on the side walk a few times and you may question your ability to win the physical confrontation with nothing but your hands...

If that accurately describes one's position, sans helmet, I don't think you're going to be able to pull a gun. I've never had my head bounced off a sidewalk a few times, but I've hit the pavement and am pretty confident that if my head hit repeatedly, I wouldn't be pulling a gun or shooting anyone.

It would appear Zimmerman did... He did have a busted nose and injuries on the back of his head according to the police document posted earlier...

Mannahnin wrote:

CptJake wrote:After your nose is broken and while your head is being bounced on the side walk a few times and you may question your ability to win the physical confrontation with nothing but your hands...

If that accurately describes one's position, sans helmet, I don't think you're going to be able to pull a gun. I've never had my head bounced off a sidewalk a few times, but I've hit the pavement and am pretty confident that if my head hit repeatedly, I wouldn't be pulling a gun or shooting anyone.

I have. At the time the employment of choking them out worked, but if I had been you betcha.

Frazzled wrote:

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances).

I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, and likely Australia, thats exactly wrong.

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~811.htm

Check.

They certainly wouldn't be entitled to draw a gun and shoot you in response, unless you were acting in a manner that indicated you weren't going to stop until they were dead.

Again you're wrong. If they say something about your mother and you procede to start to beat them to death, they can stop the attack. that means stopping you. pragmatically however, the court/jury will look at the circumstances here and it will become much harder to substantiate the heavy burden of proving self defense.

So if you punch another person in the face, that person is legally entitled to stop any further punches (even if they would not threaten to cause death or grievous bodily harm) by shooting you dead? That strikes me as more than a little bit of an overreaction.

Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances).

I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, and likely Australia, thats exactly wrong.

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~811.htm

Check.

Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

So if you punch another person in the face, that person is legally entitled to stop any further punches (even if they would not threaten to cause death or grievous bodily harm) by shooting you dead? That strikes me as more than a little bit of an overreaction.

You're not getting this are you.
Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

Nope, you face all kinds of reprecussions, from civil law suits to criminal charges (assault, communicating a threat, disturbing the peace, others). If you decide to rachet up your assault to a battery charge, you can and should expect the victim to fight back in some way.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

d-usa wrote:Going from no violence to face punching is also an over reaction.

I'd assume you've been provoked.

Though this surprises me. You mean to say in the states that I can walk right up to your face, racially abuse you or loved one, and I don't have to fear any sort of repercussion?

You're going with this provoked thing. You can't hang your hat on that very well.

Again it won't matter if you're dead.

Frazzled wrote:
Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

PROVOCATION

Provocation

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

That the person was provoked into committing the assault
That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:
Provocation of a third party

A person may be able to rely on the defence of provocation, when another person is actually the person that the act of provocation is directed to. Examples include the parent, husband, wife, relative or carer defending against an assault to another.

Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

So what's the difference between Grievous Bodily Harm and Substantial Harm?



And really? You mean to say that, in the US, if someone gravely insults me and a loved one, and I invite them to settle the matter like men, then I'm still breaking the law?

d-usa wrote:One thing that comes to mind, having wrestled quite a few bad guys with the cops, is that it is kinda hard to pull out a gun in the middle of a fistfight. If Martin is sitting on top of Z, bashing his head into the concrete, it would be pretty hard to get your hand into your waistband to pull a gun out of your holster (that Martin would be sitting on top off).

Apparently Zimmerman's revolver didn't cycle properly, indicating some obstruction that prevented the gun from firing.

AustonT wrote:

biccat wrote:But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

1. I do.
2. Maybe. The more that comes out the more I think: Yes.
3. At this point with the information on hand: No. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high hurdle, as it should be.

Thanks. I am curious if, for most people, this is a factual dispute (if Zimmerman proves X, he should go free) or a legal one (even if Zimmerman proves X, he should be found guilty). It appears in your case it's a factual issue.

Hazardous Harry wrote:He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

A professor of mine was famous for saying "if you change the facts, you can get any result you want." Mere speculation does not lead to good conclusions.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Not getting your point. Other than listing a common site for crime descriptions (interesting how the language is similar to historical crimes here) not seeing what your point is.

PROVOCATION

Provocation

The defence of provocation is only available to a person charged with assault and assault occasioning bodily harm. For a person who is charged with an assault to succeed in the defence of provocation, he or she must establish the following :

That the person was provoked into committing the assault
That the provocation deprived the person of their power of self-control:
That the person acted before their passion had time to cool:
The force used was not disproportionate to the provocation:
The force used was not intended, or was not likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm:
Provocation of a third party

A person may be able to rely on the defence of provocation, when another person is actually the person that the act of provocation is directed to. Examples include the parent, husband, wife, relative or carer defending against an assault to another.

Wow. I stand corrected.
Your law is barbarically Wild West. I love it. Its like Texas with better beer.
Now in Texas we have the "pissed off wife" doctrine, which basically states wives are permitted to exterminate, well pretty much any husband/BF if they employ the "he need killin' your honor" defense. It stems from ancient Mexican legal doctrine which translates loosely as "I'll cut your nuts off with this cleaver!" Mexican law is wise in understanding that the firey fairer sex cannot be controlled by mere laws.

Yes. If that person has a reasonable belief that they are going to die, suffer substantial harm, or another person is going to suffer substantial harm they can smear your brains on the wall. The facts of the case decide but as the immortabl bard said: its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. You may think about that the next time you get into a pushy shovie.

So what's the difference between Grievous Bodily Harm and Substantial Harm?



And really? You mean to say that, in the US, if someone gravely insults me and a loved one, and I invite them to settle the matter like men, then I'm still breaking the law?

In most states in the US yes. I don't know about Louisiana as thats a foreign country. Its probably legal for them to eat you there.
Now in my defense and in agreement with your almost Southern style legal code, in the real world, 'picking a fight" is going to make it extremely hard to claim self defense. However, to the letter of the law its not a real justification.