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.

D, if I am in an unfamiliar place being "followed" by an unfamiliar person who is making me "uncomfortable" let me tell you exactly what the military has taught me to do, and this came up just two weeks ago.

Retreat. Move to a public or secure place, contact authorities if I feel it is necessary.

This was the exact guidance I was given after a couple of service members here on base was robbed at gun point last week after they were followed by some strangers, and stopped to find out why.

Now, if you are trying to conflate how we handle things in the AOR, while fully armed and on a specific mission outside the wire, to the mean streets of suburban Florida... well your just barking up the wrong tree already.

If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.

Confronting someone is neither Self Defense nor using Self Defense with the Stand Your Ground doctrine. This is where you are confused.
As long as neither party touches the other and the terms of assault (or the specific charge in Florida) or fear of imminent harm or offensive touching, then neither side is committing a crime. Rememebr following someone is not a crime. Calling someone a jerk or asking why they are being followed is also not a crime.

The moment one party touches the other however, absent the above assault already occurring, commences the crime of battery. They cannot then claim self defense in most jurisidictions (and I am sure Florida is the same). You start the fight, you can't pull a gun in the fight when you start to lose. That is the essential crux of this case.

Anyway. I think the point d-usa was trying to make was that just as Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, Martin had the right to ask Zimmerman why the hell he was being followed. Absolutely true. It doesn't have anything to do with SYG, but it's absolutely true.

Put another way, neither of them committed a crime until the first punch was thrown (assuming Zimmerman didn't brandish or something stupid like that). And we're never going to have a way of knowing who threw that first punch, from the looks of it.

A lawyer I work with told me, though, that even that may not matter, according to Florida law. Apparently, even if you started the fight, if it suddenly gets into "fear of death or grievous yada yada" territory you can still resort to deadly force and have a valid self-defense claim.

Edit: Frazzled ninja'd me. :(

Anyway. I think the point d-usa was trying to make was that just as Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, Martin had the right to ask Zimmerman why the hell he was being followed. Absolutely true. It doesn't have anything to do with SYG, but it's absolutely true.

True on all points. Due to a lack of evidence though, it does lend weight to who could have started the physical part of the altercation.

Put another way, neither of them committed a crime until the first punch was thrown (assuming Zimmerman didn't brandish or something stupid like that). And we're never going to have a way of knowing who threw that first punch, from the looks of it.

True again. This is why the prosecution has a bit of an uphill battle. You have the Z testimony, but have to show evidence against it. I am not certain of the burden of proof in Florida for claiming self defense. Its usually an affirmative defense, but may have special requirements in Florida (or lesser requirements for that matter). The closest statement so far was from the GF, but even that stops before the event, and her testimony has been heavily impugned at this point. if I were on the jury I would not find her statements at the event credible as she was caught in multiple lies, and testified that after the phone suddenly hangs up, she goes off to do her hair. WTF?
"crazy ass cracker" does help show mental state though.

A lawyer I work with told me, though, that even that may not matter, according to Florida law. Apparently, even if you started the fight, if it suddenly gets into "fear of death or grievous yada yada" territory you can still resort to deadly force and have a valid self-defense claim.

Edit: Frazzled ninja'd me. :(

That’s extremely difficult to prove as it hits against the “reasonable” standard. In Texas if you start a fist fight with Muhammad Ali, you can’t pull a machine gun when MA very quickly takes your head off, unless there’s a break in the chain of events (after starting to get your head pounded you manage to disengage. You can then claim self defense if he pursues and continues the attack).

What Frazzled thinks happened.

TM makes way to house but doesn’t get all the way there
Z has continued –despite saying he turned around. He is in the open area near the main road. He loses TM.
TM may have turned around at this point or is hanging near the building, in semi hiding.
Z THEN turns around.
TM either turns around then or sees him coming back.
TM stops Z.
They have words. Both puff up. TM goes into attack mode as its his nature highlighted by evidence not admitted in the trial.
TM attacks Z.
Z shoots TM.

Alternatively it could be

TM makes way to house but doesn’t get all the way there
Z has continued –despite saying he turned around. He is in the open area near the main road. He loses TM.
TM may have turned around at this point or is hanging near the building, in semi hiding.
Z THEN turns around.
TM either turns around then or sees him coming back.
TM stops Z.
They have words. Both puff up.
Z tries to grab TM or a mutual pushy shovie evolves
They scuffle
TM starts to win handily
Z shoots TM.

Scenario 2 can’t be proven with the evidence at hand however.

I think Frazzled nailed it there with the two alternative scenarios. Scenario one can't be proved either.

The thing is the evidence doesn't have to be conclusive. The jury just needs to form a reasonable doubt.

We will never know the real truth of things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Frazzled nailed it there with the two alternative scenarios. Scenario one can't be proved either.

The thing is the evidence doesn't have to be conclusive. The jury just needs to form a reasonable doubt.

We will never know the real truth of things.

True on all points.

On another note, if anybody didn't catch Serino's cross-examination yesterday, you should watch it if you get the opportunity.

Of particular note is how Serino was pressured to do a "challenge meeting" with Zimmerman, which I guess is a meeting where the police try to get a suspect to change his story, by revealing some new piece of evidence or something like that. Serino said the trouble with the challenge meeting with Zimmerman was that he "didn't have much to challenge him with."

He did, however, decide to try and fake Zimmerman out by telling him at the challenge meeting that full video of the events leading up to and including the shooting had been discovered. Serino's testimony was that Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God."

Last question of the day to Serino: "Do you think Zimmerman was telling the truth?"

Serino: "Yes."

Hey testified to that on the stand you say? My 'who really did it meter" is pointing more towards innocence to Z.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey testified to that on the stand you say? My 'who really did it meter" is pointing more towards innocence to Z.

Indeed he did. According to Serino, the full Zimmerman response to being lied to about the 5-0 having finally located video of the altercation and subsequent shooting was, "Thank God. I hope they got it all."

Edit: And one of the first things up this morning was the prosecution objecting to the final question re: Serino's opinion on if Zimmerman was telling him the truth or not. They've squabbled about it for a while, and objection was sustained. Judge has told jury to disregard question - "Did you believe Zimmerman?" - and answer - "Yes."

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey testified to that on the stand you say? My 'who really did it meter" is pointing more towards innocence to Z.

Indeed he did. According to Serino, the full Zimmerman response to being lied to about the 5-0 having finally located video of the altercation and subsequent shooting was, "Thank God. I hope they got it all."

I think that probably says a lot.

 Seaward wrote:
On another note, if anybody didn't catch Serino's cross-examination yesterday, you should watch it if you get the opportunity.

Of particular note is how Serino was pressured to do a "challenge meeting" with Zimmerman, which I guess is a meeting where the police try to get a suspect to change his story, by revealing some new piece of evidence or something like that. Serino said the trouble with the challenge meeting with Zimmerman was that he "didn't have much to challenge him with."

He did, however, decide to try and fake Zimmerman out by telling him at the challenge meeting that full video of the events leading up to and including the shooting had been discovered. Serino's testimony was that Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God."

Last question of the day to Serino: "Do you think Zimmerman was telling the truth?"

Serino: "Yes."

Well then! That just made the Prosecution's day all sorts of interesting. You don't usually say "Thank God" if someone just turned up incriminating video of you in a homocide investigation.

On another board it appears the prosecution objected to this testimony this morning and the judge told the jury to ignore the statement.

Sure they will.

 Frazzled wrote:
On another board it appears the prosecution objected to this testimony this morning and the judge told the jury to ignore the statement.

Sure they will.

The prosecution objected only to the, "Did you believe him?" question and answer. All the stuff about the challenge interview and the "Thank God!" response stands.

What's funny about the objection is that the judge read the question and response out to the jurors again before telling them to ignore it.

Prosecution just scored some points on redirect, though. Serino said evidence indicated Zimmerman was in fact following Martin rather than looking for a street address.

Defense is now on...whatever it's called. Re-cross? I dunno.

Got Serino to admit that dispatch asking Zimmerman, "What direction is he going?" could be taken as an implied request to follow.

Defense: "What crime occurs if I walk up to you on a street and say, 'Get out of here!'?"

Serino: "None."

Defense: Was Zimmerman wrong to follow Martin?

Serino: "Legally speaking, no."

And now it turns out Serino based his 'Zimmerman was following Martin after saying otherwise' assumption on evidence of where they ended up, and defense is using a map to impeach memory. To good effect.

Defense just got Serino to admit it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to call the cops on Martin.

 Seaward wrote:
The prosecution objected only to the, "Did you believe him?" question and answer. All the stuff about the challenge interview and the "Thank God!" response stands.

What's funny about the objection is that the judge read the question and response out to the jurors again before telling them to ignore it.

Nothing says "Ignore this fact" like repeating it

From Serino testimony: Medical examiner's report (regarding powder burns, type of wound, trajectory, etc.) supports Zimmerman's account of the circumstances of the actual shooting, not the state's. ME report indicates Martin was over Zimmerman at the time of shooting.

With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Defense is now on...whatever it's called. Re-cross? I dunno.

I think it's a re-direct

 Seaward wrote:
Got Serino to admit that dispatch asking Zimmerman, "What direction is he going?" could be taken as an implied request to follow.

Defense: "What crime occurs if I walk up to you on a street and say, 'Get out of here!'?"

Serino: "None."

Defense: Was Zimmerman wrong to follow Martin?

Serino: "Legally speaking, no."

And now it turns out Serino based his 'Zimmerman was following Martin after saying otherwise' assumption on evidence of where they ended up, and defense is using a map to impeach memory. To good effect.

Defense just got Serino to admit it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to call the cops on Martin.

So the Prosecution's uphill battle now resembles trying to climb Everest

I don't know. It certainly seems that way to me, but I'm no lawyer. The prosecution is making points, but they're points that we all already know - Zimmerman might have profiled Martin, etc.

I also don't think that the prosecution having had to end two straight testimonies (Singleton, the first investigator to interview Zimmerman, and Serino, the lead investigator) with attacks is really helping them.

State's final question to Serino: "It could be raining outside right now, right? You have no way of knowing?"

Serino: "It could be, yes."

State: "You're just speculating?"

Serino: "I'm just speculating."

Because naturally if you have a strong case you have to be aggressive to your own witnesses.....

I do like the irony that the Prosecution is trying to show that Zimmerman might have profiled Martin, and then start to question their own witness about his speculations

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.

Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?

I'd like to think so, but we've had howling braying mobs since time immemorial

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.

Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?

Even if that howling mob is working with Jesse Jackson.

NOW I have a bone to pick with this thread. Stop freaking bringing up Stand Your Ground.

It is not, in any way, shape or form relevant to this case, NOR has it been invoked in George Zimmerman's defense. The ONLY individuals howling about SYG in the Zimmerman trial are papers like the New York Times, and the NYT has admitted they got it wrong. A fine article from the nice people at reason.com http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/20/the-new-york-times-admits-its-reporting

A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law." In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case." As I have been saying since this story began attracting national press attention, Zimmerman's defense does not hinge on the right to stand your ground when you are attacked in a public place because he claims he shot Trayvon Martin during a violent struggle in which there was no opportunity to retreat. So why is "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" relevant? According to the Times, because it "was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman." But the provision cited by police, although it was included in the same 2005 bill that eliminated the duty to retreat, has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" principle.

The police said they did not charge Zimmerman right away because of a provision that prohibits a law enforcement agency from arresting someone who claims to have used deadly force in self-defense "unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." In other words, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (which he has always admitted) was not enough; the police also needed reason to doubt his self-defense claim. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but it is completely distinct from the right to stand your ground. Even a state that imposes a duty to retreat could still require police to meet this test before arresting someone who claims self-defense.

From the beginning press coverage of this case has routinely conflated these issues, implying that Florida's definition of self-defense is so broad that it gave Zimmerman a license to kill in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force. The New York Times has been one of the worst offenders in this respect, running one story after another that either obscured or misstated the legal issues while suggesting that both Martin's death and the delay in arresting Zimmerman somehow hinged on the absence of a duty to retreat. Now the Times is implicitly admitting that its reporting was based on a fundamentally mistaken premise.

Bolds my own. D-usa I don't know about what kind of substandard concealed carry training you've received in Oklahoma, but I've been followed before. I've even had a vehicle follow me all the way home from some point on the freeway. It turns out they were friends of one of my neighbors. They found it amusing our destinations LITERALLY were next door to each other. Did my threat awareness go up a peg from yellow to orange? Yes. Did I look at some potential defensive options and keep an eye on them? Yes. Did I have the right to violently attack them in any way shape or form, despite having no duty to retreat here in Colorado? (especially once I was on my own property) No. No I fething did not. As has been stated above thanks to reason.com, the NYT and a whole host of posters in this thread, SYG/No Duty to Retreat solely applies on the application of lethal force in a self defense situation. Being followed is a shady/suspicious situation, but it is not at the point where you can turn around and shoot someone, or go and physically attack them in any way.

In every martial arts class I've ever TAUGHT on self defense, including with you know "adults" who like me carry a gun every day and do hand to hand training in the name of fun, exercise and more options then drawing a sidearm have I ever told my students, or been told by my own masters "If some dude is following you, go rough him up 'cause that's a threat. I in fact teach the same methods djones received. If you are being followed by a shady individual. get to a well lit public area (if you're driving, drive to your local police station), formulate a defensive strategy in your head and if you're extremely concerned call in the LEOs. If the following individual escalates the situation, by threatening or attacking you in some way, THEN and only then does your force curriculum begin to open up.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.

Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?

Much like charging Z was brought about by a howling mob led by a few "Reverends". I use that term loosely.

A defense motion filed earlier today that I think shows how desperate the prosecution's getting:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0713/reply_mot_inquiry.pdf

What a load of BS.

Prosecution just had its first witness hostile to Zimmerman in a long time. A medical examiner. Not the medical examiner who actually did Martin's autopsy, but one who saw photographs of it.

The moneyshot takeaways:

It looks to her like Zimmerman was "punched once." His head wounds were consistent with striking concrete, but again, "only once." Zimmerman's injuries "not life-threatening."

Defense is now mauling her over her close ties to Corey (special prosecutor) and past problems as ME in other districts.

Edit: And pretty effortlessly getting her to admit that yeah, sure, she supposes it could've been more than one blow.

Second Edit: Abrasions on Martin's hands consistent with striking someone. No other injuries on Martin aside from gunshot.

Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?

 bibblles wrote:
Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?

You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.

The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..

Who knows! Not me though.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 bibblles wrote:
Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?

You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.

The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..

Who knows! Not me though.

Not me. For a jury of my peers I expect twelve rum swilling wiener transporting neadnerthals with delusions of coherence!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 bibblles wrote:
Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?

You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.

The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..

Who knows! Not me though.

Not me. For a jury of my peers I expect twelve rum swilling wiener transporting neadnerthals with delusions of coherence!

I would be honored to serve on your jury, I would hope to extend the scratching post of peace by having a "dirty cat lover" help find you innocent.

Word.