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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Read my previous posts where I accept the verdict and as I stated even before the virdict, not illegal != right and I admitted my own uncertainly as to whether Martin committed a crime at the same time I voiced my distaste with his actions.

I object to people willfully ignoring how mess up the situation really is. I'm twisting the story? How do you know Zimmerman isn't twisting the story? The only other person who knew for certain what happened is dead and rather than questioning what happened because we really should be, people just go 'murica and guns self defense hur!' It's ridiculous. People should really be asking if society should accept this scenario as acceptable and we should be asking how someone can be killed like this. It's a pointless meaningless death spawned by an unusual series of events, but for whatever reason no one seems to give a damn.

I've noticed that since the verdict no one has mentioned how Martin was high as a kite? Drugs are bad mmmkay

i've never smoked weed but I was under the impression it can make a person very paranoid?

 Hordini wrote:
I am not saying there is no possibility that could stem from Zimmerman following Martin in which Martin might justifiably be able to defend himself, but I don't think there is any point in which deadly force would just justified simply for the act of following someone.

That's not my point. My point is flip the situation. The stupid part of this case is that it can so easily be reversed. Imagine the cops showing up at the scene and Martin telling them "he chased me and pulled a gun on me and I defended myself." What's our natural reaction to that? We'd only have Martin's word that's what happened.

And of course I suspect that once the 'drug' and 'school trouble' bit hit the news no one would believe him even though the quality of the evidence is exactly the same.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:


I've noticed that since the verdict no one has mentioned how Martin was high as a kite? Drugs are bad mmmkay

i've never smoked weed but I was under the impression it can make a person very paranoid?

So we should just move on with life cause the dead guy was a druggie?

 LordofHats wrote:



Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.

No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And WTF is lean?

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:



Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.

No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And WTF is lean?

not sure what lean is, but this circus has turned into a parade, so I'm going to bed. =)

Its profiling to consider everyone wearing a hoodie is "up to no good". I think there was a law passed here actually to just that effect. Wearing the hood up is a style choice I would imagine. I know enough people that wear outfits that would be considered thuggish to know that inherently they aren't as bad as their appearance makes them out to be. However, of course they may still infer that hostility amidst those that profile them as such. =/

Oh, but saying that you still look like a right tool going out dressed like that. Pull up your trousers already.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I am not saying there is no possibility that could stem from Zimmerman following Martin in which Martin might justifiably be able to defend himself, but I don't think there is any point in which deadly force would just justified simply for the act of following someone.

That's not my point. My point is flip the situation. The stupid part of this case is that it can so easily be reversed. Imagine the cops showing up at the scene and Martin telling them "he chased me and pulled a gun on me and I defended myself." What's our natural reaction to that? We'd only have Martin's word that's what happened.

And in that case, Martin should also not have been charged, or if charged, been acquitted, because there wouldn't be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed murder or manslaughter.

Either way, there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict either party, and I doubt there would have been enough evidence to suggest that Martin committed something a harsh as second degree murder if he had accidentally killed Zimmerman. It might have depended on how many times it took for Martin to beat Zimmerman's head into the concrete before Zimmerman died, but probably only if it was a rather high number.

I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.

Well this is depressing. I'm starting to think florida isn't a very nice place.

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:



Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.

No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And WTF is lean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_drank


http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=75112

Skittles are also used in making it.

I am just glad its over. Enough with all sorts of trials happening in Florida. The prosecution failed with their case and should have done better with their witnesses.

The good news is, between Casey Anthony and Zimmerman it seems prosecutors in Florida are so bad you can get away with murder.

 Hordini wrote:
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.

So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.

As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?

No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.

Wow...you can't make this stuff up!

Several legal commercial products loosely based on "purple drank" are marketed in the United States. In June 2008 Innovative Beverage Group, a Houston, Texas-based company, released a beverage called "Drank." The commercial product contains no codeine or promethazine, but claims to "Slow Your Roll" with a combination of herbal ingredients such as valerian root and rose hips as well as the hormone melatonin.[37][38] Similar "relaxation" or "anti-energy" drinks on the commercial market use the names "Purple Stuff", "Sippin Syrup", and "Lean".[39][40][41]

 thehod wrote:
I am just glad its over. Enough with all sorts of trials happening in Florida. The prosecution failed with their case and should have done better with their witnesses.

The good news is, between Casey Anthony and Zimmerman it seems prosecutors in Florida are so bad you can get away with murder.

I guess that's good news for Aaron Hernandez and the charges that may be brought against him in Florida.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.

So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.

As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?

No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.

I'm listening and reading. And quite frankly, you'd have to criminalize "following". Zimmerman didn't break any laws following Martin. Not a single one....

And again, missing the point. The point now isn't did he break the law. That's a moot question with his acquittal. The question now should be whether or not his behavior constitutes recklessness, a depraved indifference, so forth. Should a private citizen get to subjectively determine guilt, spark a dangerous situation, and then after the fact claim self-defense? That seems very wrong to me. If someone were following me down a street I don't want to have to worry about confronting them and being shot just for him to then tell the cops I didn't look familiar and attacked him. That's not a very pleasant thought at all.

Zimmerman's behavior was irrational and someone died. This should call into question how we handle neighborhood watch organizations, citizen arrests, and 911 calls. But no. Some kid with troubles died and maybe he threw the first punch, so we don't give a gak.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.

So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.

As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?

No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.

I think Zimmerman's fully capable of lying, I just don't think he's Anthony Hopkins in a crime film - to wit, I don't think he's capable of ginning up a story that covers both all the physical evidence, and accounts for everything that people he didn't even know about saw and heard.

Martin had no wounds on him beyond the gunshot. There was zero evidence that Zimmerman ever assaulted him, or even hit back. There is overwhelming evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman.

Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Absolutely. He called the cops over someone he thought was suspicious. For all the talk of him "stalking" Martin, the evidence actually suggests it was the other way around.

 cincydooley wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.

So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.

As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?

No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.

I'm listening and reading. And quite frankly, you'd have to criminalize "following". Zimmerman didn't break any laws following Martin. Not a single one....

Yeah. I think it's an unusual enough situation that we shouldn't be expending a large amount of effort trying to pass laws trying to make sure that it doesn't happen again. My concern would be that any legal effort to prevent something like this in the future would neuter self-defense laws quite a bit (the burden for self-defense is already pretty high), or like cincydooly said, you would have to criminalize following, which would be absolutely ridiculous.

 LordofHats wrote:
If someone were following me down a street I don't want to have to worry about confronting them and being shot just for him to then tell the cops I didn't look familiar and attacked him.

So maybe don't physically confront them?

Just saw this goin around on facebook. That's some fast photoshop.

 Seaward wrote:

So maybe don't physically confront them?

Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.

Dexter wouldn't kill Zimmerman. He's hardly the typical PoS that catches Dexters ire.

So does this guy get the gun back or does it remain as evidence? Does this guy still get to own a firearm in general? Is he still allowed to drive around gated communities in the rain?

Is there no probation of any kind?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

So maybe don't physically confront them?

Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.

I think we have examined that evidence and determined that "giving chase," as you have termed it, is not illegal, nor should it be. What would constitutes "giving chase" would also seem to be pretty subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So does this guy get the gun back or does it remain as evidence? Does this guy still get to own a firearm in general? Is he still allowed to drive around gated communities in the rain?

I'm not sure if he would get that specific gun back, but why wouldn't he be able to own a firearm or drive around in the rain? The jury determined he did not commit a crime.

I'd assume police don't get to keep alleged murder weapons once someone is acquitted but then maybe they'd keep it for the file (maybe he has to go to court to get it back from the evidence locker)? At the least I'd expect they should reimburse him the cost.

I've been in one....ONE...fire fight at night. That is not fun. So yes I've been followed at night and yes we followed an individual at night. My incident involved 40+ of us and what we had on NVG's was one individual. Eastern Afghanistan outside of Jallabad FoB. That one individual turned into 14 shooters and three RPGer's in the middle of a good size town. Tracer coming down the road......RPG's coming down the road...couple dried crap thrown down the road.....possible kitchen sink....manhole cover....just a lot of lead going back and forth.
This is where I got shot in the chest the very first time wearing a IBA. Cracked sternum later. Stumble. dragged my self behind a nice little BMW. Plate stopped it but it went through magazine that was fully loaded. So the first five rounds shot out the top of the mag and "punched" me in the chin. Wind knocked out of me...couple of my buds all over me looking for blood. I'm giving thumbs up....medic running over accidently kneed me in my nuts when he crashed beside me...someone stepped on my fingers as they shifted position.. Medic frisking me for blood. Again I give the thumbs up and somewhat able to breath say "I'm....alright..."
Medic "You sure?!"
me "Yes...dam...mit..."
Medic "How many fingers I'm holding?!"
me "Lean..closer"
Medic "Okay....."
Punched him as hard as I could for cracking my nuts saying "That's for my boys Jonsie!!" (medic was name Jones)
Medic "Gawddammit Wilk WTF was that for?!?!"
Leaning to the side on the ground nursing my nuts....
LT "If you two on the ground will stop making kissy faces and get back into the fight I might ignore the gay moment that passed between the two of you" Over the net

Edged closer the BMW wheel leaning out far enough and having my magazine support my weapon I engaged a mud wall with possible two insurgents behind it.
RPG round goes "BOOM" down on our end

"Damn we got a smart one up there" Insurgent remembers to pull the pin to the RPG to arm it.

Swap mags...feeling better..started to seriously get into mode "Do unto others as they do unto you"
"WHOOSH" BOOM"......I cannot see out my right eye and barely out my left because some Chucklehead decided to lean out behind me and fire a AT4 over me.

Started to squad leap towards the insurgent.....240 and 249's started talking to each other. (they're all behind a mud wall that seems to made of armor from a M1)

"Everyone HOLD!!!! Apache engaging" over the net (thinking now I should have replace my glitter tape on my ACH)

Gunner proceeded to shoot the base of the wall. Puts two Hellfire at the top of the wall...wall falls over trapping six insurgents

Frag5 Uparmor HUMVEE comes tearing up the road and slams into the remainder of the wall...which turns into the locals latrine.....
Needless to say...threat removed....all 14 are accounted for....three wounded on our side...

Another fun filled night in Paradise

He gets the gun back. Already has it, in fact. Huffington Post is outraged over this, I just noticed.

There's no probation, because he was not found guilty of a crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

So maybe don't physically confront them?

Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.

If the other guys don't keep their distance and actually start a physical altercation with you - note: asking, "Who are you?" or "What are you doing here?" or any other variation, with however much profanity you like, is not starting a physical altercation - then you're more than welcome to hulk out.

I find your deep conviction that you should be free to assault anyone who's making you uncomfortable to be pretty wild. Because that's ultimately what it boils down to.

Hmmm...

Well I am happy that it went to trial.

 Seaward wrote:
He gets the gun back. Already has it, in fact. Huffington Post is outraged over this, I just noticed.

There's no probation, because he was not found guilty of a crime.

Having his gun back seems reasonable since he wasn't convicted and thus didn't commit a crime.
It would be outrageous if he started trying to sell it...
You would get good money for it though because people are fething weird.

 Seaward wrote:

I find your deep conviction that you should be free to assault anyone who's making you uncomfortable to be pretty wild. Because that's ultimately what it boils down to.

I find the deep conviction that a private citizen can determine guilt and not be held accountable for the a death resulting from their reckless actions pretty wild. Because ultimately that's what has happened here. Private citizens now get to decide if someone is guilty, they get to play cop, and if someone dies as a result, it's okay as long as they didn't punch first. Do I really need to explain how horribly that can be abused?

So you don't think private citizens should be able to confront somebody who they think may be committing a crime?

I don't see how that's the same thing as determining guilt.

 LordofHats wrote:
I find the deep conviction that a private citizen can determine guilt and not be held accountable for the a death resulting from their reckless actions pretty wild. Because ultimately that's what has happened here. Private citizens now get to decide if someone is guilty, they get to play cop, and if someone dies as a result, it's okay as long as they didn't punch first. Do I really need to explain how horribly that can be abused?

You'll need to clarify what you believe was reckless about Zimmerman's actions.

A question, though: do you believe you have the right to assault anyone who follows you in public? Or anyone who asks you a question you don't like?

 whembly wrote:
Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...

To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...

Four minutes.

Why does TM have to "get away" at all? Stand Your Ground is pretty clear you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if you feel that you are in imminent threat of grievous bodily harm; with no duty to retreat at all if you're in someplace you have a lawful right to be. A big problem with this law is that well, there is a lot of wiggle room and grey area for what constitutes a reasonable opinion this is the situation you are in. I posted this earlier in the thread, but it's possible that no one at all was technically, or legally, "wrong".

Zimmerman follows TM. No problem.

TM feels that he is in danger for his life, that he is being stalked by a dangerous, possibly armed, stranger. There are no witnesses and no evidence to what sparked the confrontation so we don't know what triggered the physicality. He decides under SYG to defend himself. He is technically and legally right - in fact, he could beat Zimmerman to death under this law and be legally OK in my opinion, under SYG, so long as he can later prove he had "reasonable" cause to fear for his safety - which again, is pretty damn nebulous.

Zimmerman is being beaten and is now also in fear for his life and employs deadly force. He is, again, legally OK.

So, we have a young man dead, but no actual crime was comitted - just a serious of really unfortunate events.

Ultimately in my opinion, under the evidence that we have and the facts that we have - justice was served. I think the prosecution overreached; and my only concern was that it appeared he would never be charged at all initially when I think there was ample evidence a crime may have been committed. Once he was charged, tried, and found not guilty - out system worked.

Morally, of course, he should probably have listened to the damn dispatcher and let the police handle it. He doesn't have to listen to the dispatcher, but he sure should have. Bad judgement in this case was not a crime, though.