Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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...