The case of George Zimmerman and deadly "stand your ground."

[BigLutz]

Hey I am not going to get infracted for your ego, so I am going to respond to the actual part of your post that deals with the topic.

How wonderful, a biased jury made up of idiots stupid enough to rely on a lie detector, and you celebrating that fact.

Celebrating? No. Realistically Accepting? Yes.

Both sides are playing the potential jury right now, or have you not noticed the release of the interview that accuses Zimmerman of being a molester. The accusation has nothing to do with the case, it would never have been played in court. But the prosecution realizes that they are losing the case in the media right now after a string of good news for Zimmerman, so they need something to put him back into the villain column.

 

[Malanu]

Isn't it amazing how cynical we get when it comes to justice any more Big? I'm not disagreeing with your observation, but it's pretty sad when the court system has to turn to the media to get "Justice".

 

[Ipwnyou]

Celebrating? No. Realistically Accepting? Yes.

Both sides are playing the potential jury right now, or have you not noticed the release of the interview that accuses Zimmerman of being a molester. The accusation has nothing to do with the case, it would never have been played in court. But the prosecution realizes that they are losing the case in the media right now after a string of good news for Zimmerman, so they need something to put him back into the villain column.

The entire point of a jury is that you're supposed to select people who don't know anything about the case beforehand, anything else beforehand.

You weren't just a cynic who accepted that an idiotic jury is going to believe false evidence, you were presenting that as if it was an actual argument for your side of the debate, because that's what Zimmerman supporters actually consider evidence.

 

[BigLutz]

The entire point of a jury is that you're supposed to select people who don't know anything about the case beforehand, anything else beforehand.

Yeah and in a high profile case like this the chance of that is nil.

You weren't just a cynic who accepted that an idiotic jury is going to believe false evidence, you were presenting that as if it was an actual argument for your side of the debate, because that's what Zimmerman supporters actually consider evidence.

Considering some of the pathetic evidence, false evidence, and things that should not have been released at all from the prosecution, the lie detector test is nothing.

 

[Malanu]

The entire point of a jury is that you're supposed to select people who don't know anything about the case beforehand, anything else beforehand.

You weren't just a cynic who accepted that an idiotic jury is going to believe false evidence, you were presenting that as if it was an actual argument for your side of the debate, because that's what Zimmerman supporters actually consider evidence.

I beg to differ. I don't support or condemn Zimmerman, though I do lean towards his being guilty of killing the young man. Both sides are tainting the pool of jurors because both sides are leaking information and misinformation to get potential jurors to have an opinion. So Big is right, By having things like stories of the lie detector test and the one of the home brew drug/drink concoction both sides have theories that are out in the populace circulating and swaying our opinions one way or the other.

Now tell me, where in the US are we supposed to find 12 people who haven't heard of this case? It is an argument for both sides as stories vilifying both men have been aired!

Zimmerman admits to the shooting, He apparently has scraps and contusions from a struggle that were documented. What we don't have is a witness to how the shooting actually happened. Both stories logically add up, so now all that is needed is that emotional nudge to swing the jury. Like it or not, Big's point is valid and it is valid for both sides of this case.

Zimmerman is guilty of shooting Martin. Now what is needed to be determined is if it was self defense or criminal intent. And Martin's side will use every tactic they can to prove guilt and Zim's team will pull out every trick to prove innocence. Big's post you quoted, says exactly that. Nothing more.

 

[SBaby]

I beg to differ. I don't support or condemn Zimmerman, though I do lean towards his being guilty of killing the young man. Both sides are tainting the pool of jurors because both sides are leaking information and misinformation to get potential jurors to have an opinion. So Big is right, By having things like stories of the lie detector test and the one of the home brew drug/drink concoction both sides have theories that are out in the populace circulating and swaying our opinions one way or the other.

Now tell me, where in the US are we supposed to find 12 people who haven't heard of this case? It is an argument for both sides as stories vilifying both men have been aired!

Zimmerman admits to the shooting, He apparently has scraps and contusions from a struggle that were documented. What we don't have is a witness to how the shooting actually happened. Both stories logically add up, so now all that is needed is that emotional nudge to swing the jury. Like it or not, Big's point is valid and it is valid for both sides of this case.

Zimmerman is guilty of shooting Martin. Now what is needed to be determined is if it was self defense or criminal intent. And Martin's side will use every tactic they can to prove guilt and Zim's team will pull out every trick to prove innocence. Big's post you quoted, says exactly that. Nothing more.

We're not saying he didn't KILL the guy. That's obviously true. We're just trying to figure out under what circumstances it was done.

And in answer to your second question, you can't. It's like trying to tell a jury to disregard something they've already heard. But a Judge alone cannot render a verdict in a murder trial.

It's a situation. Nobody's saying it isn't. But honestly the more I hear about it, the more I feel that there may not truly be a right answer to this.

 

[Malanu]

Yeah, I hear you. The shooting could have gone either way (self defense or cold calculated), My personal opinion is Zimmerman's injuries though documented, just did not appear to be "serious enough" to warrant shooting. On the other hand I know a man who died by slip and fall in an icy parking lot. I wasn't there, so all I have is my experiences and personal knowledge to judge on. Zimmerman had options as to where to shoot Treyvon(leg, arm etc), but in the heat of a struggle I can agree that lining up that shot isn't a given.

I'd agree to manslaughter but not murder because intent to kill isn't proven... yet.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

Yeah, I hear you. The shooting could have gone either way (self defense or cold calculated), My personal opinion is Zimmerman's injuries though documented, just did not appear to be "serious enough" to warrant shooting. On the other hand I know a man who died by slip and fall in an icy parking lot. I wasn't there, so all I have is my experiences and personal knowledge to judge on. Zimmerman had options as to where to shoot Treyvon(leg, arm etc), but in the heat of a struggle I can agree that lining up that shot isn't a given.

I'd agree to manslaughter but not murder because intent to kill isn't proven... yet.

I don’t think you can even consider the shooting as self-defense. Look at Trayvon Martin, a boy that wore a hoodie, had a bag of skittles, and was walking home to his residence. He has nothing visible that should’ve caused Zimmerman to be threatened by his presence, and apparently kept questioning Zimmerman as to why he kept following him.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

The law clearly states that you cannot use deadly force even under the “reasonable belief that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against another’s use of unlawful force.” However, if worse comes to worse and deadly force is used, it has to be under the condition of reasonable belief and “great bodily harm”/or to prevent crime. I would probably advise the expertise of doctors just to solidify how Zimmerman’s injuries were minor (I’m operating under the idea that if your life is threatened, then deadly force is permissible…in this case, I don’t see Zimmerman’s injuries as life-threatening).

Trayvon Martin has been documented as having a hoodie, a bag with contents of skittles and iced tea and was on his way to his Dad’s house. In that case, what reasonable belief did Zimmerman have to defend himself? If you look at conversations, you’d notice that his mind has been warped with the idea that he is on drugs, and the fact that people like him always get away with things. He even disregards the dispatcher’s advice to not go after him. It seems more and more to me that Zimmerman was fueled to do something like this rather than act on self-defense. Additionally, I agree with you in that his injuries were not severe enough to warrant having to use deadly force so I can’t understand Zimmerman’s logic, and the fact that he suffered these minor injuries says more about Trayvon’s lack of weapon/deadly force…meaning Zimmerman should not have had access to deadly force and Trayvon wasn’t committing a felony, so what’s there to prevent?

On top of all of that, Trayvon doesn't appear to have a weapon, but Zimmerman shoots him anyway? That's a direct violation of the right to 'duty to retreat'...where you match the force that's inflicted in a place where Zimmerman has the right to be in. Call me crazy, but weapon vs. potentially no weapon is definitely not equal in force. The more we try to theorize about this, the more I'm compelled to believe that it's a crime of passion and misplaced belief on Zimmerman's part in that Trayvon Martin was a criminal.

 

[BigLutz]

I don’t think you can even consider the shooting as self-defense. Look at Trayvon Martin, a boy that wore a hoodie, had a bag of skittles, and was walking home to his residence. He has nothing visible that should’ve caused Zimmerman to be threatened by his presence, and apparently kept questioning Zimmerman as to why he kept following him.

I would suggest reading up on your history, the neighborhood had been vandalized by black youths in hoodies. Thus Trevyon Martin walking home alone, and not being a part of the neighborhood was suspicious.

The law clearly states that you cannot use deadly force even under the “reasonable belief that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against another’s use of unlawful force.” However, if worse comes to worse and deadly force is used, it has to be under the condition of reasonable belief and “great bodily harm”/or to prevent crime. I would probably advise the expertise of doctors just to solidify how Zimmerman’s injuries were minor (I’m operating under the idea that if your life is threatened, then deadly force is permissible…in this case, I don’t see Zimmerman’s injuries as life-threatening).

Trayvon Martin has been documented as having a hoodie, a bag with contents of skittles and iced tea and was on his way to his Dad’s house. In that case, what reasonable belief did Zimmerman have to defend himself? If you look at conversations, you’d notice that his mind has been warped with the idea that he is on drugs, and the fact that people like him always get away with things. He even disregards the dispatcher’s advice to not go after him. It seems more and more to me that Zimmerman was fueled to do something like this rather than act on self-defense. Additionally, I agree with you in that his injuries were not severe enough to warrant having to use deadly force so I can’t understand Zimmerman’s logic, and the fact that he suffered these minor injuries says more about Trayvon’s lack of weapon/deadly force…meaning Zimmerman should not have had access to deadly force and Trayvon wasn’t committing a felony, so what’s there to prevent?

On top of all of that, Trayvon doesn't appear to have a weapon, but Zimmerman shoots him anyway? That's a direct violation of the right to 'duty to retreat'...where you match the force that's inflicted in a place where Zimmerman has the right to be in. Call me crazy, but weapon vs. potentially no weapon is definitely not equal in force. The more we try to theorize about this, the more I'm compelled to believe that it's a crime of passion and misplaced belief on Zimmerman's part in that Trayvon Martin was a criminal.

If Zimmerman's defense is to be believed, Martin was ontop of him trying to bash his skull into the sidewalk, thus Zimmerman did not have a chance to retreat, and believed that he needed to use such force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, something the pictures and evidence do corroborate. Thing is if Martin had attacked him and was trying to kill him with his hands, then Zimmerman had every right to kill him.

 

[Malanu]

Burning there is the possibility that Trey was beating Zim with what to Zim may have appeared to be deadly intent. Zim may not have been trying for deadly force but in the struggle shot with deadly results.

I don’t see Zimmerman’s injuries as life-threatening.

However is Trey was banging Zim's head into the concrete it is quite easy to see how "Life Threatening" it would be to Zim. As a trained martial artist, if I had broke a man's arm to stop him from smashing my head into the ground that's cool. but say I am going for a thumb drive to his eye and crush his larynx instead during the struggle, was it defense or murder?

I don't disagree that it could be one over the other, but it's a hard line to prove without witnesses. It is pretty calculating of Zim to after shooting Trey, to stay at the scene, disarm himself, and give account of what happened if he shot Trey in cold blood. It's not impossible but it is unlikely he shoot in malice or with intent to kill.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

I would suggest reading up on your history, the neighborhood had been vandalized by black youths in hoodies. Thus Trevyon Martin walking home alone, and not being a part of the neighborhood was suspicious.

That his problem then, you can't operate under the mentality that just because some vandals that happened to be black and in hoodies that every black man in a hoodie is a criminal. That issue happens when you're predicated by fear rather than rationality.

If Zimmerman's defense is to be believed, Martin was ontop of him trying to bash his skull into the sidewalk, thus Zimmerman did not have a chance to retreat, and believed that he needed to use such force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, something the pictures and evidence do corroborate. Thing is if Martin had attacked him and was trying to kill him with his hands, then Zimmerman had every right to kill him.

Burning there is the possibility that Trey was beating Zim with what to Zim may have appeared to be deadly intent. Zim may not have been trying for deadly force but in the struggle shot with deadly results.

I don't disagree with that at all, but I wonder about deadly intent. Sure Zimmerman had suffered injuries but not significant enough to indicate that Martin was threatening him (a witness did say he appeared to pin him after punching him...but we simply don't know).

At the same time, we're dealing with a person who that wanted to take things into his own hands on top of being suspicious of his attire and race. Wouldn't it have been enough to report the issue, or wait until a crime is committed?

However is Trey was banging Zim's head into the concrete it is quite easy to see how "Life Threatening" it would be to Zim. As a trained martial artist, if I had broke a man's arm to stop him from smashing my head into the ground that's cool. but say I am going for a thumb drive to his eye and crush his larynx instead during the struggle, was it defense or murder?

I guess Canadian Law and my definition of self-defense has somewhat tainted my view, if someone is using bodily force to attack me, Canadian Law expects that the defender has the right to respond with equal force. Equal being the key word here, so I can't come at my attacker with a gun, otherwise it's either assault/murder on my hands.

I don't disagree that it could be one over the other, but it's a hard line to prove without witnesses. It is pretty calculating of Zim to after shooting Trey, to stay at the scene, disarm himself, and give account of what happened if he shot Trey in cold blood. It's not impossible but it is unlikely he shoot in malice or with intent to kill.

It definitely is a hard line to prove, and the fact that there are no hard legitimate facts other than injuries, a conversation, and a dead boy doesn't help at all. But I theorize that (if proven true) Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's advice because he felt need to protect his neighbourhood from vandals that look like Trayvon, the only issue is he has no right to use vigilante justice.

 

[Malanu]

At the same time, we're dealing with a person who that wanted to take things into his own hands on top of being suspicious of his attire and race. Wouldn't it have been enough to report the issue, or wait until a crime is committed?

I'm sorry but in my Criminal Justice classes, Profiling suspects is considered good police work. If crime is being reported being committed by X then eliminating Y & Z from the list is smart law enforcement. security comes with a sacrifice of freedom. Gated communities surrender freedom to come and go unchallenged for the safety that provides.

The problem is that the stereotype is statistically proven when it comes to race and crime. It's been discussed in this thread. According to the FBIs numbers and the Census Bureau numbers, more violent crimes are committed by a minority of 13% of the population than is committed by the 64% majority. And those crimes are much more prevalent by the yougth of said minority than the elders. So why stop an elderly woman when the area crimes are committed by young adult males?

the only issue is he has no right to use vigilante justice.

On this we cannot disagree. But was it vigilante justice? That line s a bit fuzzy. He disobeyed a police dispatcher (or 911 operator) neither is an authority as if a Officer told him to stand down.

 

[BigLutz]

That his problem then, you can't operate under the mentality that just because some vandals that happened to be black and in hoodies that every black man in a hoodie is a criminal. That issue happens when you're predicated by fear rather than rationality.

Yet it does warrant investigation, if not to be tracked to see if the person is going to be trying to break into a house. We do not know what happened, but Zimmerman could have simply have followed him to see which house he was theoretically going to burglarize which is his right.

I don't disagree with that at all, but I wonder about deadly intent. Sure Zimmerman had suffered injuries but not significant enough to indicate that Martin was threatening him (a witness did say he appeared to pin him after punching him...but we simply don't know).

Zimmerman suffered injuries to the back of his head and to his nose, suggesting that Martin was trying to attack his head, which is enough for one to fear for their life, especially if Martin was ontop of him, thus his ability to escape was fairly limited.

At the same time, we're dealing with a person who that wanted to take things into his own hands on top of being suspicious of his attire and race. Wouldn't it have been enough to report the issue, or wait until a crime is committed?

So far we have no information that Zimmerman did nothing more than report the issue and follow Martin to see what was committed, after that all is speculation.

I guess Canadian Law and my definition of self-defense has somewhat tainted my view, if someone is using bodily force to attack me, Canadian Law expects that the defender has the right to respond with equal force. Equal being the key word here, so I can't come at my attacker with a gun, otherwise it's either assault/murder on my hands.

No offense but that sounds like a pretty stupid law, if some one is attempting to kill you by smashing your head into the concrete, you are going to do everything to save yourself. You are not going to go "Well he is only using his hands, so while I have this gun here that will save me, I will only use my hands and risk having my brain splattered all over the concrete"

It definitely is a hard line to prove, and the fact that there are no hard legitimate facts other than injuries, a conversation, and a dead boy doesn't help at all. But I theorize that (if proven true) Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's advice because he felt need to protect his neighbourhood from vandals that look like Trayvon, the only issue is he has no right to use vigilante justice.

Woah hold on, Zimmerman may have disregarded the advice to not follow Zimmerman, but not following and actually trying to dispatch vigilante justice is a massive leap in logic.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

I'm sorry but in my Criminal Justice classes, Profiling suspects is considered good police work. If crime is being reported being committed by X then eliminating Y & Z from the list is smart law enforcement. security comes with a sacrifice of freedom. Gated communities surrender freedom to come and go unchallenged for the safety that provides.

Except profiling would result in the assumption that Trayvon Martin would've broke into one of Zimmerman's neighbourhood's residences and commit a crime similar to what Zimmerman's neighbourhood has suffered recently. Then you're really crossing the line between normal profiling and stereotyping. The only record of intent we have of Trayvon is that he called a girl because of his suspicions about George Zimmerman, and that he was going to his father's house. It's hedging between profiling and stereotyping and it's never effective when you introduce racism/stereotype.

On this we cannot disagree. But was it vigilante justice? That line s a bit fuzzy. He disobeyed a police dispatcher (or 911 operator) neither is an authority as if a Officer told him to stand down.

It is fuzzy, but if he wasn't going to remain where he was and got to the point where he was face-to-face with Trayvon, how is it not taking matters into his own hands?

Yet it does warrant investigation, if not to be tracked to see if the person is going to be trying to break into a house. We do not know what happened, but Zimmerman could have simply have followed him to see which house he was theoretically going to burglarize which is his right.

I'm not saying it's not his right to investigate, I'm attacking his train of thought if he really believed that Martin was going to commit a crime merely because others have done so as black people in a hoodie.

Zimmerman suffered injuries to the back of his head and to his nose, suggesting that Martin was trying to attack his head, which is enough for one to fear for their life, especially if Martin was ontop of him, thus his ability to escape was fairly limited.

Yet all he got were lacerations, bruises, and cuts. To me it comes down to the definition of reasonable force, I don't see how it's fair that you can use deadly force to counteract an opposing force when he doesn't even have a weapon. It's called self-defense not flatout murder.

So far we have no information that Zimmerman did nothing more than report the issue and follow Martin to see what was committed, after that all is speculation.

Fair enough

Woah hold on, Zimmerman may have disregarded the advice to not follow Zimmerman, but not following and actually trying to dispatch vigilante justice is a massive leap in logic.

How else would you explain that he did what did, and how the meeting escalated into violence?

 

[BigLutz]

It is fuzzy, but if he wasn't going to remain where he was and got to the point where he was face-to-face with Trayvon, how is it not taking matters into his own hands?

Because we do not know how they got face-to-face if Zimmerman actively approached Martin, or if like Zimmerman says, he was ambushed by Martin.

I'm not saying it's not his right to investigate, I'm attacking his train of thought if he really believed that Martin was going to commit a crime merely because others have done so as black people in a hoodie.

It was a gated community, with a large white population, with a gang of black teen youths in hoods attacking houses. Martin was a outsider of the neighborhood, black, and wearing a hood while alone at night. He fit every single profile of someone that had burglarized the homes.

Yet all he got were lacerations, bruises, and cuts. To me it comes down to the definition of reasonable force, I don't see how it's fair that you can use deadly force to counteract an opposing force when he doesn't even have a weapon. It's called self-defense not flatout murder.

When some one is attempting to murder you, and lets be clear if Martin was ontop of him and trying to break his head in, that is what it is. Self Defense involves killing him to make him stop. Martin's weapons were his hands and the concrete beneath Zimmerman, both were more than enough to splatter his brains across the concrete if Martin wanted so. Just because Martin did not have a gun himself does not mean that he could not easily kill him.

How else would you explain that he did what did, and how the meeting escalated into violence?

Again, we do not know, we do not know who engaged the confrontation. Zimmerman could have been a vigilante and tried to stop him as you said. On the same hand Martin could have been pissed at being followed and tried to ambush and kill Zimmerman while he was walking back to his car. But the fact that we do not have a eyewitness in the case of how the confrontation begins means we cannot suddenly jump to any conclusions.

 

[Malanu]

Except profiling would result in the assumption that Trayvon Martin would've broke into one of Zimmerman's neighbourhood's residences and commit a crime similar to what Zimmerman's neighbourhood has suffered recently. Then you're really crossing the line between normal profiling and stereotyping. The only record of intent we have of Trayvon is that he called a girl because of his suspicions about George Zimmerman, and that he was going to his father's house. It's hedging between profiling and stereotyping and it's never effective when you introduce racism/stereotype.

Sorry but if The profile fits you watch the suspect till you are sure they are not a criminal. IF Zim didn't hear the conversation he could have gotten the wrong impression that Trey was calling in "friends". I had a gig as a security guard/dispatcher for an armored car company 22 years ago. Suspicion is your best weapon. A young man wearing clothing fitting a description of a suspect who has been committing crime in the area is to be watched, Zim got to close violence erupted and Trey died.

How else would you explain that he did what did, and how the meeting escalated into violence?

Zim approached to question Trey's intentions. Trey got offended and uncooperative. The situation escalated and violence ensued. That is one way it could have happened. Not an unlikely scenario, as I have seen suspects get unruly with Police plenty of times where if they had been passive they wouldn't have ended up in a squad car bleeding. The difference between a professional Officer and a rent a cop!