Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
Tragedy all around. TM shouldn't have died that night.

Not sure If I agree. According to witness testimony, TM had time to get home but went back and initiated the altercation (TM attacked first). TM was bigger than GZ (killer). According to the lead investigator, a lot of crooks use rainy, dark days to commit crimes which the community TM was at had a recent rash of break ins. They both couldve handled the situation better. Specially Zimmerman.

I agree with you but iirc, the dispatcher ask him for an address and asked him what was TM doing. This was contradictory of his initial request not to follow him. The lead investigator agreed with that assesment when the lawyers brought it up. As to why he followed, he was the nitgh watchman and combined that with the frustration of the recent crimes maybe felt he needed to do more. He should have stayed in the car.

As a night watchman he felt it was his job. It was adark night and TM being close to 6' and was wearing a hoodie, I doubt GZ knew he was a teenager (he wasn't a kid).

Per the "star" witness testimony, he sounded more annoyed than threatened. I agree that GZ followed but didn't approach, by his multiple testimonies, they ran into each other and that's when everything started. The lead investigator claimed that his testimonies were always consistent even when he used all his tricks to try to get him in a lie.

I'm not saying GZ is innocent but per Florida law they got the right verdict. What bothers me is since most people didn't got the verdict they wanted, everyone that does not see it their way is a racist, specially the jury.

IMO, the blame falls on the prosecution. They did a horrendous job. They overreached with the charges. If they had gone for other charges I think he would have been found guilty. The juror said that under Florida law they couldn't find him guilty, even if they wanted to.

So in terms of actions while I may not completely agree that TM should have confronted GZ, if he had other options, I do think TM was more justifiable in HIS actions than GZ was.

That's not necessarily contradictory to telling him not to follow him. Asking for an address is pretty standard asking what TM was doing is also pretty standard. None of which means go after him to follow him if you have lost contact with him. Even towards the end they are trying to send cops to meet GZ at his current location and GZ opts not to them.

I agree the prosecution over stepped their boundaries.

Originally posted by Newjak
So in terms of actions while I may not completely agree that TM should have confronted GZ, if he had other options, I do think TM was more justifiable in HIS actions than GZ was.

That's not how it legally works. If Zimmerman, as the story claims, did not lay a hand on Martin (until Martin came after him), Martin was not justified in touching him. You just can't punch people that you don't like...though, it would be nice if there was a "you can punch people" exception to the law. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it legally works. If Zimmerman, as the story claims, did not lay a hand on Martin (until Martin came after him), Martin was not justified in touching him. You just can't punch people that you don't like...though, it would be nice if there was a "you can punch people" exception to the law. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it legally works. If Zimmerman, as the story claims, did not lay a hand on Martin (until Martin came after him), Martin was not justified in touching him. You just can't punch people that you don't like...though, it would be nice if there was a "you can punch people" exception to the law. 😄

Is that the specific law in Florida? I'd be shocked if it was, considering.

Cos in some states there are pre-emptive self-defense clauses, where if you feel threatened enough, you're (the defender) allowed to land the first blow, as a means to gain the advantage and better protect yourself.

In NY, you can kill someone as a means to prevent a kidnapping, rape, sodomy (not sure why they differentiate with the rape here) or robbery.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it legally works. If Zimmerman, as the story claims, did not lay a hand on Martin (until Martin came after him), Martin was not justified in touching him. You just can't punch people that you don't like...though, it would be nice if there was a "you can punch people" exception to the law. 😄

not under Florida law

the only legal considerations are a) If the person felt they were in danger and b) If it was reasonable to feel they were in danger.

The cases cited by the defense include a couple where self-defense was successful even when there had been no injury sustained by the defendant, and in fact, cases where the deceased had not even touched the defendant.

I can put up the video of the acquittal motion again, I had it a few pages back but it is likely buried at this point.

Originally posted by Oliver North
not under Florida law

the only legal considerations are a) If the person felt they were in danger and b) If it was reasonable to feel they were in danger.

The cases cited by the defense include a couple where self-defense was successful even when there had been no injury sustained by the defendant, and in fact, cases where the deceased had not even touched the defendant.

I can put up the video of the acquittal motion again, I had it a few pages back but it is likely buried at this point.

My post/point was including that information as applied specifically to this case. My assumption was that others would understand that 'legally', 'Zimmerman', 'Martin', ‘law’(singular) and the location of my post within this thread were references enough to put my post into context. Granted, this thread has been rife with lots of…hmm…there is no polite way to put it so just fill in the blank and assume it references ignorance and hate. So I understand your perspective regarding my post if it (your perspective) were formed with a superficial and hasty reading. The second sentence was quite specific and referenced "...to the law...", singular, to refer to the "Stand Your Ground" law that caused the controversy regarding this case.

So, to reword, for your specific benefit, there is no provision in the law that says you can "stand your ground" with deadly force just because you don't like someone: that would include pulling out your fists. My very last remark was obviously a joke about wanting there to be a provision that did allow you to punch people in the face that you didn’t like.

The major issue is considering that there is not justifiable reason for Martin to have felt threatened enough to start the conversation with fists. [There was nothing reasonable to conclude fists was the answer to what Zimmerman were doing which was literally asking what Martin was doing.] I do believe the jury agrees with me.*

*Since Martin was not there to make his case that he felt life-threatened and the reasons why, we only have Zimmerman's story to go with which is why I stated this:

"...if Zimmerman, as the story claims..."

P.S. I can give such a very long reply to a benign post because it is very slow at work, right now. 🙁 Day is draggin'.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is that the specific law in Florida? I'd be shocked if it was, considering.

Cos in some states there are pre-emptive self-defense clauses, where if you feel threatened enough, you're (the defender) allowed to land the first blow, as a means to gain the advantage and better protect yourself.

In NY, you can kill someone as a means to prevent a kidnapping, rape, sodomy (not sure why they differentiate with the rape here) or robbery.

I am of the opinion that it was not reasonable to use fists, on Martin's part. So I don't think Martin would be justified. Edit -Because of Oliver North's response, I must clarify that I specifically mean that Martin would not be justified in using his fists under the Stand Your Ground law in Florida and he is not around to justify his use, legally, so we are stuck with the evidence left over and Zimmerman's testimony. 🙁

No one reported that Zimmerman was acting crazy or yelling before he confronted Martin (but I am fuzzy on the details regarding post-confrontation). We don't have any evidence that Zimmerman threatened Martin's life or anything like that. He sounded calm enough on the 911 recordings and he did not sound out of control on the phone. He came off more "aha, I got the SoBs breaking into our houses" rather than, "someone's going to die tonight: make my day".

I mentioned those things because in the precedences used to justify the use of deadly force under the law were cases involving some or all of those negative elements I mentioned, above.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it legally works. If Zimmerman, as the story claims, did not lay a hand on Martin (until Martin came after him), Martin was not justified in touching him. You just can't punch people that you don't like...though, it would be nice if there was a "you can punch people" exception to the law. 😄

And if Martin did lay a hand on Zimmerman, during what is claimed to be a calm and reasonable confrontation, I believe that would escalate the confrontation enough for Martin to be justified in his fisticuffs adventure.

For me, that was a necessary element that seemed to be missing from the "story".

Originally posted by Newjak
That's not necessarily contradictory to telling him not to follow him. Asking for an address is pretty standard asking what TM was doing is also pretty standard. None of which means go after him to follow him if you have lost contact with him. Even towards the end they are trying to send cops to meet GZ at his current location and GZ opts not to them.

Yeah, I meant to address that as well.

You don't have to follow someone to look out of your window to see what a person is doing, as long as they are still in view.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My post/point was including that information as applied specifically to this case. My assumption was that others would understand that 'legally', 'Zimmerman', 'Martin', ‘law’(singular) and the location of my post within this thread were references enough to put my post into context. Granted, this thread has been rife with lots of…hmm…there is no polite way to put it so just fill in the blank and assume it references ignorance and hate. So I understand your perspective regarding my post if it (your perspective) were formed with a superficial and hasty reading. The second sentence was quite specific and referenced "...to the law...", singular, to refer to the "Stand Your Ground" law that caused the controversy regarding this case.

So, to reword, for your specific benefit, there is no provision in the law that says you can "stand your ground" with deadly force just because you don't like someone: that would include pulling out your fists. My very last remark was obviously a joke about wanting there to be a provision that did allow you to punch people in the face that you didn’t like.

The major issue is considering that there is not justifiable reason for Martin to have felt threatened enough to start the conversation with fists. [There was nothing reasonable to conclude fists was the answer to what Zimmerman were doing which was literally asking what Martin was doing.] I do believe the jury agrees with me.*

*Since Martin was not there to make his case that he felt life-threatened and the reasons why, we only have Zimmerman's story to go with which is why I stated this:

"...if Zimmerman, as the story claims..."

actually, the reason self-defense doesn't apply to Martin was that he was not charged with a crime

Probably cos it's not legal to charge a corpse with a crime.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, the reason self-defense doesn't apply to Martin was that he was not charged with a crime

Preface:
A self-defense justification on Martin's part is necessary but he wasn't the one on trial. I'll explain why Martin's "self-defense" justification is a necessary discussion in defending or prosecuting Zimmerman, in the following text, which functions as my reply to this sentence of yours:

I avoided the label of "self-defense" on purpose...mostly because that opens a whole can of worms:

"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

Martin is not around to make that case for his use of force which Zimmerman claimed escalated to deadly force...which in turn justified Zimmerman's use of deadly force in response to the force Martin was using.

My perspective is Martin's use of force was not justifiable at the very beginning of this confrontation which comes into play, here (and where Symmetric Chaos's gears get rather ground):

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Martin was not attacked nor is it apparent that Zimmerman intended to use deadly force in his confrontation (or any force). Martin was not justified in punching Zimmerman...from what we know from Zimmerman's story (and other evidence).

The key, here, is determining whether or not Martin was justified in his use of any forces and it does not seem he is. The case then must focus on Zimmerman and conclude whether or not he had a right to respond to those forces, Martin was using, with those allowable under 776.013.3. The jury sided with Zimmerman.*

My comment was more about Martin not liking what Zimmerman was doing rather than having a lawful justification for his action. Again, you can't just punch someone you don't like.

*Some argue that even if Martin was justified in using physical force, Zimmerman could then site 776.013.3 as a justified response to Martin's justified response to verbal Zimmerman's confrontation. This descends into a spiral of almost paradoxical implications: everyone is justified and someone legally dies...from a mere punch. I disagree that it descends into this paradox and the onus is on the initiator, in this particular case, of the initial physical force. This would be different if Zimmerman was yelling or acting in some way the conveyed he was a “crazy person” out to harm Martin, as we saw in a precedence cited by the defense.**

**It is possible to justify, on Martin's part, that he felt physically threatened with deadly force because, if here were still alive, could easily claim that Zimmerman approached Martin with his hand on his gun while his gun was still in its holster (or mentioned at the beginning of his confrontation of Martin that he “had a gun” and/or implied he would use it). If that is the case, then we can get Symmetric Chaos’ paradox. But I submit that if Zimmerman approached the situation like that (allowing the girlfriend to hear it), he would not have gotten acquitted by the jury. That wasn’t the case as the girlfriend said she heard Martin do the initial verbal confronting when Zimmerman was approaching Martin.

References:
Text of the Law:
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

P.S. Can the case be turned on its head because Martin can justify the creepy dude following him made him justifiably fear for his life? And before you say it, yes, I am aware Martin is not around to make such a defense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
P.S. Can the case be turned on its head because Martin can justify the creepy dude following him made him justifiably fear for his life? And before you say it, yes, I am aware Martin is not around to make such a defense.

no

under Florida law, even if there were no question that Zimmerman provoked the fight, it doesn't matter in determining self-defense pleas.

Originally posted by Oliver North
no

under Florida law, even if there were no question that Zimmerman provoked the fight, it doesn't matter in determining self-defense pleas.

I don't understand your answer in the context of the section you quotted. Your answer is not making sense to me.

Can you better explain your answer?

I can't help it: it is one of those dumb moments I have every now and again. Something just isn't clicking when I read my post and then yours (I've done it 3 times, now...not making sense, still).

Doesn't matter if Zimmerman went up to Martin, punched him and told him "you're dying tonight", in terms of Zimmerman then killing Martin in return after Martin attacks as self defense under Florida law. That's what I take from what he's saying.

Martin's motivations for attacking Zimmerman, be they malicious or in self-defense, are not considerations under Florida law once Zimmerman has determined he faces grievous bodily harm from the attack.

So, imagine you and I are in a Florida bar. I come up to you, push you, call your mother some offensive names, threaten you and maybe punch you (though, no physical contact is necessary...), you would be well within your right to defend yourself, and if you threw me across the bar or knocked me out, it would be a simple open and shut case.

However, instead of just coldcocking me, you push me to the ground and hit me repeatedly. Under Florida law, you still might be justified if the fight ended there. However, while on the ground, if I feel that I am about to sustain grievous bodily harm (it doesn't matter if I actually do sustain it, just the perception) I am within my right to use deadly force to stop the attack. It actually does not matter that I started the fight.

Zimmerman's claim to self-defense begins after Martin attacks him, once he is put in the situation where he feels he is going to sustain grievous harm. Whatever Martin's motivations before that, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, are not a consideration in Florida [to contrast with the self-defense stuff I posted from Canada, up until recently there were actually separate types of "self-defense" pleas that differentiated between conflicts the defendant started and those they did not].

It's really like what Sym pointed out earlier in the thread. One of the most astonishing things here is that it is highly likely both individuals were acting in a completely legal manner under Florida law. In a different world where Martin were simply wounded by the shot, it is almost certain he would have gotten off on any assault charge (assuming non-racist police/jury/etc).

The defense goes over this with one of the state witnesses, the former instructor Zimmerman had in a college level legal class on... Self-Defense pleas...

so no, I don't think anything about Martin's motivations would have "turned the trial on its head"

Originally posted by Oliver North
Martin's motivations for attacking Zimmerman, be they malicious or in self-defense, are not considerations under Florida law once Zimmerman has determined he faces grievous bodily harm from the attack.

So, imagine you and I are in a Florida bar. I come up to you, push you, call your mother some offensive names, threaten you and maybe punch you (though, no physical contact is necessary...), you would be well within your right to defend yourself, and if you threw me across the bar or knocked me out, it would be a simple open and shut case.

However, instead of just coldcocking me, you push me to the ground and hit me repeatedly. Under Florida law, you still might be justified if the fight ended there. However, while on the ground, if I feel that I am about to sustain grievous bodily harm (it doesn't matter if I actually do sustain it, just the perception) I am within my right to use deadly force to stop the attack. It actually does not matter that I started the fight.

Zimmerman's claim to self-defense begins after Martin attacks him, once he is put in the situation where he feels he is going to sustain grievous harm. Whatever Martin's motivations before that, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, are not a consideration in Florida [to contrast with the self-defense stuff I posted from Canada, up until recently there were actually separate types of "self-defense" pleas that differentiated between conflicts the defendant started and those they did not].

It's really like what Sym pointed out earlier in the thread. One of the most astonishing things here is that it is highly likely both individuals were acting in a completely legal manner under Florida law. In a different world where Martin were simply wounded by the shot, it is almost certain he would have gotten off on any assault charge (assuming non-racist police/jury/etc).

The defense goes over this with one of the state witnesses, the former instructor Zimmerman had in a college level legal class on... [b]Self-Defense pleas...

so no, I don't think anything about Martin's motivations would have "turned the trial on its head" [/B]

Oh, okay, I better understand, now. Based on what you said, I disagree. If we had evidence that could show Martin could justify his physical reaction to Zimmerman's verbal confrontation, I see Zimmerman getting convicted of the murder 1 charge: no paradox exists.

This is where humans come into play an a literal reading of the laws would be inappropriate. That leads to all sorts of stupid things like a person being justified in fighting back against any law-enforcement situation and being justified in killing them. I didn't read anywhere in the law where it said, "Except in the case of a rough arrest from police or just a confrontation from police."

Lemme better explain: if there was a very lucky audio-video recording of the confrontation and it shows that Zimmerman approached Martin with his hand on his gun, then we would see a very nicely justified self-defense case from Martin AND a conviction for Zimmerman...assuming everything else is true.

To me, that would single-handed turn the case on its head.

More directly, I do not see a contradiction in that law and the human enforcement/interpretation of the law prevents such silly conundrums.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't matter if Zimmerman went up to Martin, punched him and told him "you're dying tonight", in terms of Zimmerman then killing Martin in return after Martin attacks as self defense under Florida law. That's what I take from what he's saying.

After reading ON's post, I think you were right in your interpretation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, okay, I better understand, now. Based on what you said, I disagree. If we had evidence that could show Martin could justify his physical reaction to Zimmerman's verbal confrontation, I see Zimmerman getting convicted of the murder 1 charge: no paradox exists.

murder 1? pre-meditated murder....?

lol

and no, Florida law would give well more than enough leeway in this situation, even given we are using a scenario described almost entirely by Zimmerman, going by cases cited by Zimmerman's lawyers. Again, Martin would not have to show he was in any danger, merely that he perceived he was in danger, and there is no necessity that Zimmerman actually even provoke a conflict.

Florida law makes no mention of intent or proportionality of response in terms of self-defense. The only considerations are about the perceptions of the person doing the defending. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman had a justifiable reason to confront or follow or approach Martin, all that matters is that Martin perceived it as a threat to his safety.

Zimmerman will kill again 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
Zimmerman will kill again 🙂

He might have too.

ya, someone might just take the law into their own hands and do something terrible and unwarranted to him...

or maybe he'll get shot by a white neighborhood surveillance pseudo-cop because he took a shortcut home while being hispanic.