Zimmerman/Martin Case

[Gameface]

This. If memory serves, Zimmerman called the police who told him NOT to confront the guy. If that's true, then he purposely put himself in harms way, against better judgement AND direct recommendations from the authorities. At that point, whether or not Mr Martin was beating the hell out of him doesn't matter.

It's like going in to the bear country, finding a bear, asking the forest ranger what he should do, ignoring that rangers orders and going to wear that bear is, agitating the bear, and then claiming self defense after shooting it.

If that's all true, this is one of those cases where if he doesn't serve time a riot should ensue.

Edit: They didn't tell him not to engage, but they did tell him that "they don't need him to do that", which only marginally changes my opinion of the matter.

Just like when a dad tells his daughter not to go on a date with Jimmy because he's trouble. The daughter sneaks out of the house to meet up with Jimmy. Clearly she's forfeited her right to say no or to resist his advances...judging by your stellar logic.

 

[The Thriller]

Just like when a dad tells his daughter not to go on a date with Jimmy because he's trouble. The daughter sneaks out of the house to meet up with Jimmy. Clearly she's forfeited her right to say no or to resist his advances...judging by your stellar logic.

Huh?

The AUTHORITIES not some father figure told Zimmermann to essentially STAND DOWN. So using YOUR logic it would be like the father, head of police, telling his 30+ year old daughter to stay away from jimmy because he is a suspected drug dealer. Well, later that night she sneaks out and is in the same apt as jimmy is when the drug bust goes down. Unless we have access to blood tests, we have no real way of knowing whether she was consuming the drugs with jimmy. She's going to be arrested and prosecuted. Likewise, we have no way of knowing FOR SURE what happened. Hopefully with time, we can piece together what actually happened. But Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak IMO. Smear the kid's reputation, claim self defense, no wounds where one would expect there to be, and oh btw, he ignored the instructions given by real cops.

He is going to get manslaughter at the very least.

 

[Gameface]

Huh?

The AUTHORITIES not some father figure told Zimmermann to essentially STAND DOWN. So using YOUR logic it would be like the father, head of police, telling his 30+ year old daughter to stay away from jimmy because he is a suspected drug dealer. Well, later that night she sneaks out and is in the same apt as jimmy is when the drug bust goes down. Unless we have access to blood tests, we have no real way of knowing whether she was consuming the drugs with jimmy. She's going to be arrested and prosecuted. Likewise, we have no way of knowing FOR SURE what happened. Hopefully with time, we can piece together what actually happened. But Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak IMO. Smear the kid's reputation, claim self defense, no wounds where one would expect there to be, and oh btw, he ignored the instructions given by real cops.

He is going to get manslaughter at the very least.

A father is an AUTHORITY (legally recognized) in regard to his daughter. The 9-11 operator (not a law enforcement officer) suggested Zimmerman not pursue. 9-11 operators have zero legal authority over anyone.

9-11 operators ALWAYS suggest you do the least confrontational thing. The law does not require that.

The case against Zimmerman is weak. Super weak. All the anti-Zimmerman people think Zimmerman needs to prove justification for killing Martin. That's not the case, the state needs to prove Zimmerman did not have justification. Much more difficult.

Your posts above about Zimmerman's case being about smearing Martin...They just concluded the phase of the trial regarding what evidence could be presented. Obviously the defense wants as much damaging evidence against Martin to be admitted as possible. Doesn't mean they have to use it, but if they get it approved by the judge it becomes another arrow in their quiver. The judge ruled mostly against Zimmerman, saying only if the prosecution enters evidence that makes Martin's actions outside the incident with Zimmerman relevant can the defense bring it up. Had the defense not tried to enter that evidence they would have been incompetent.

 

[Qman]

Huh?

The AUTHORITIES not some father figure told Zimmermann to essentially STAND DOWN. So using YOUR logic it would be like the father, head of police, telling his 30+ year old daughter to stay away from jimmy because he is a suspected drug dealer. Well, later that night she sneaks out and is in the same apt as jimmy is when the drug bust goes down. Unless we have access to blood tests, we have no real way of knowing whether she was consuming the drugs with jimmy. She's going to be arrested and prosecuted. Likewise, we have no way of knowing FOR SURE what happened. Hopefully with time, we can piece together what actually happened. But Zimmerman's defense is pretty weak IMO. Smear the kid's reputation, claim self defense, no wounds where one would expect there to be, and oh btw, he ignored the instructions given by real cops.

He is going to get manslaughter at the very least.

Nonsense- it wasn't the police who told Zimmerman to standdown. It was the 911 operator. Refusing direction from a 911 operator doesn't negate your right to self-defense. It probably indicates poor judgement but if Zimmerman's injuries show his life was in danger I believe he was justified.

 

[Gameface]

Zimmerman walks. I'll take any comers at any stakes.

 

[The Thriller]

A father is an AUTHORITY (legally recognized) in regard to his daughter. The 9-11 operator (not a law enforcement officer) suggested Zimmerman not pursue. 9-11 operators have zero legal authority over anyone.

9-11 operators ALWAYS suggest you do the least confrontational thing. The law does not require that.

The case against Zimmerman is weak. Super weak. All the anti-Zimmerman people think Zimmerman needs to prove justification for killing Martin. That's not the case, the state needs to prove Zimmerman did not have justification. Much more difficult.

Your posts above about Zimmerman's case being about smearing Martin...They just concluded the phase of the trial regarding what evidence could be presented. Obviously the defense wants as much damaging evidence against Martin to be admitted as possible. Doesn't mean they have to use it, but if they get it approved by the judge it becomes another arrow in their quiver. The judge ruled mostly against Zimmerman, saying only if the prosecution enters evidence that makes Martin's actions outside the incident with Zimmerman relevant can the defense bring it up. Had the defense not tried to enter that evidence they would have been incompetent.

I don't have much time here, but you're confusing the age of the daughter and legal authority of the father. What was Zimmerman's age when he killed Martin? The father no longer has legal authority over the daughter who is 30+ years old or whatever Zimmerman's age is

 

[Gameface]

I don't have much time here, but you're confusing the age of the daughter and legal authority of the father. What was Zimmerman's age when he killed Martin? The father no longer has legal authority over the daughter who is 30+ years old or whatever Zimmerman's age is

And neither does the 9-11 operator...

At no point did Zimmerman forfeit his right to self defense. If attacked he was legally able to defend himself.

 

[The Thriller]

And neither does the 9-11 operator...

At no point did Zimmerman forfeit his right to self defense. If attacked he was legally able to defend himself.

Fair enough. I didn't claim that it made any sense. I was just pointing out that your analogy involving a daughter didn't really fly either.

But here's a serious question, why wouldn't you stand down when the operator tells you to? Are you really going to think, "Ha, you operators know nothing. I'm going to continue to do whatever the hell I want?" That's crucial. Why did he continue to pursue Martin?

 

[Stoked]

Fair enough. I didn't claim that it made any sense. I was just pointing out that your analogy involving a daughter didn't really fly either.

But here's a serious question, why wouldn't you stand down when the operator tells you to? Are you really going to think, "Ha, you operators know nothing. I'm going to continue to do whatever the hell I want?" That's crucial. Why did he continue to pursue Martin?

Fair questions. But they do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin ( murdered not killed).

 

[Gameface]

Fair enough. I didn't claim that it made any sense. I was just pointing out that your analogy involving a daughter didn't really fly either.

But here's a serious question, why wouldn't you stand down when the operator tells you to? Are you really going to think, "Ha, you operators know nothing. I'm going to continue to do whatever the hell I want?" That's crucial. Why did he continue to pursue Martin?

Well, hasn't Zimmerman said that there were a number of robberies and no one had been caught? If he thought Martin was involved and could catch him in the act he would be doing a great service to his community. While we're all busy calling him a mall cop and some vigilante nut case let's not forget that that at least to Zimmerman he was trying to protect his community.

 

[The Thriller]

Fair questions. But they do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin ( murdered not killed).

Fair enough.

But I think it increases dramatically the chances (which, admittedly, isn't saying much. I don't see how this guy doesn't just get manslaughter) that he gets convicted of something greater than manslaughter.

They'll never be able to piece together what exactly happened ala Jodi Arias. The evidence just isn't there. However, I think the trial suddenly becomes a lot more interesting if they show that Zimmerman ignored the operator and went "looking" for trouble. It, at the very least, will cause the jury to think twice before merely drinking the "I'm just a poor innocent neighborhood watch guy who was attacked without warning by some punk kid" Kool-Aid.

Personally, I don't think Zimmerman went with intent to kill. However, I think this guy was a loose cannon (like most mall cops. Even moreso when you analyze Zimmerman's past behavior). He overstepped his boundaries and picked on the wrong guy. Unfortunately, Zimmerman had a gun. In reality, Zimmerman just needed his *** kicked to be reminded of his place. You don't follow people to the point of pissing them off. Right?

 

[The Thriller]

Well, hasn't Zimmerman said that there were a number of robberies and no one had been caught? If he thought Martin was involved and could catch him in the act he would be doing a great service to his community. While we're all busy calling him a mall cop and some vigilante nut case let's not forget that that at least to Zimmerman he was trying to protect his community.

The way you go about it is crucial. And again, know your place. I find it interesting that you're one of those who is always concerned over freedom yet seem to support Zimmerman's seeming... PARANOIA and SPYING OF Martin.

I get wanting to have a safe community. Who doesn't?

But at what cost? Are we really going to support mall cops following us around, coming out of their cars, and otherwise harassing us to the point where a physical conflict is all but guaranteed? I mean, what would you do if a mall cop followed and followed you? Wouldn't you be a lil nervous? Or annoyed? Would you eventually call out to the guy? What happens if the guy... To you... Looks suspicious? Or a threat? I just... Put myself in Martin's position and fail to see myself acting much different. Due to Zimmerman's stalking, a physical conflict seemed all but imminent.

And lets suppose Martin was casing houses to rob... What robber doesn't flee from some fat *** mall cop? I would say most of the time an athletic kid like Martin runs and makes it back to his house before Zimmerman puts down his donut to even chase him.

 

[Nate505]

Fair questions. But they do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin ( murdered not killed).

I'm not sure why they're pursuing a murder charge. Manslaughter seems more appropriate, though I guess there are complication's with Florida's idiotic "Stand Your Ground" law. Ultimately I'm not sure there is even enough proof for a manslaughter conviction. Still, all I do know is that if Zimmerman would have just minded his own ****ing business like a regular person, none of this would be happening, so even if he gets off he deserves every moment of hell he's going through.

 

[Nate505]

Well, hasn't Zimmerman said that there were a number of robberies and no one had been caught? If he thought Martin was involved and could catch him in the act he would be doing a great service to his community. While we're all busy calling him a mall cop and some vigilante nut case let's not forget that that at least to Zimmerman he was trying to protect his community.

There have been burglaries around my area. I don't go following every random teenager I see, especially at 7 PM when I imagine most burglars do their work.

This was part of his phone call to 911:

He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."

Apparently because he was walking around in the rain. Hey Zimmerman, **** you. Sometimes I enjoy just walking around in the rain. It's relaxing, and it clears the mind. Hell they made a song about it in the 60s for chrissakes, it's hardly some unusual activity. Should I be subjected to 911 calls from asshats like you because I'm out minding my own business and not breaking the law? I'm praying, just praying, that the 911 operator would tell you to go **** yourself and clear the line for people who are calling with real problems. The real tragedy would be if someone having a heart attack had to wait a second longer so this clown could spout his nonsense about people who are not committing crimes.

Again, I've changed my tune on this case in general in terms of his guilt, or the evidence they have, but all the mall cop jokes are appropriate to him. Martin as far as I know was out there minding his own business, and if Zimmerman would have just kept on driving to the store he wouldn't be in this mess and he wouldn't have killed someone.

 

[The Thriller]

There have been burglaries around my area. I don't go following every random teenager I see, especially at 7 PM when I imagine most burglars do their work.

This was part of his phone call to 911:

He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."

Apparently because he was walking around in the rain. Hey Zimmerman, **** you. Sometimes I enjoy just walking around in the rain. It's relaxing, and it clears the mind. Hell they made a song about it in the 60s for chrissakes, it's hardly some unusual activity. Should I be subjected to 911 calls from asshats like you because I'm out minding my own business and not breaking the law? I'm praying, just praying, that the 911 operator would tell you to go **** yourself and clear the line for people who are calling with real problems. The real tragedy would be if someone having a heart attack had to wait a second longer so this clown could spout his nonsense about people who are not committing crimes.

Again, I've changed my tune on this case in general in terms of his guilt, or the evidence they have, but all the mall cop jokes are appropriate to him. Martin as far as I know was out there minding his own business, and if Zimmerman would have just kept on driving to the store he wouldn't be in this mess and he wouldn't have killed someone.

Exactly.

The truth of the matter is, Zimmerman has a long history of this type of nonsense. He clearly was more motivated by this imagined "power" and "authority" than with any altruistic acts.

Like most mall cops, he had self esteem issues.

Sadly, for both parties, he picked on the wrong kid. I just wish that he hadn't died. Zimmerman deserved an *** beating. Trayvon did not deserve to be killed. I think if you put most folks on this board in Trayvon's position and you'd see a physical conflict occur. Wonder if they'd be shot too?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The cops had been called numerous times prior to this night's events with no positive results. Zimmerman's experience was that the cops never arrived until after the suspect(s) escaped.

Again, the gun was not discharged until Zimmerman was physically assaulted.

No, I don't believe that is accurate. Is it not more accurate to say, "the gun was not discharged until a physical altercation ensued?' We don't know who assaulted whom (Martin is not around to tell his story) do we? Even if Martin initiated the physical altercation, we don't know whether or to what degree he felt threatened when he did nor that he did so reasonably fearing for his own physical safety.

To my mind, the evidence that Zimmerman sustained head injuries is irrelevant without knowing the context in which this occurred, and thus to me it does not exclude him from primary culpability for the whole damned sorry mess. (I am open to changing my mind with further evidence, NOT further spin, though.)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I know, it was pull your ****ing hair out mind blowingly nuts the stuff he was saying about not defending your own property.

I don't know. I can see, I think, where he was coming from. I think I agree with the underlying principle--human life is ALWAYS worth more than human property, so we should exercise extreme caution when taking the one to protect the latter--though he lost me when he said he would never take a life, even to defend his own (I think I remember him saying that). In the scenario you give where a thief knocks on your door and proceeds to steal from you is an extreme and, if has ever happened, will rarely ever happen. In that case, clearly you resist, unless he pulls out a gun or makes a clear and present threat on your life. On the other hand, I can think of plenty scenarios in which I conclude it's not worth the risk to intervene directly to save my property OR to intervene only to a certain point. I think I can say confidently, that I would never shoot someone to keep them from stealing property of mine, which can be replaced with my insurance in any case. I would never escalate it that far (at least I think I wouldn't). BUT I would, I hope, use deadly force if necessary to protect my life and that of others. I would not hesitate (I hope at least). However, since I don't own a gun, and never will, and consider the likelihood of any scenario like this to be extremely rare, I doubt I'll ever put any of this to the test.

 

[Gameface]

There have been burglaries around my area. I don't go following every random teenager I see, especially at 7 PM when I imagine most burglars do their work.

This was part of his phone call to 911:

He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."

Apparently because he was walking around in the rain. Hey Zimmerman, **** you. Sometimes I enjoy just walking around in the rain. It's relaxing, and it clears the mind. Hell they made a song about it in the 60s for chrissakes, it's hardly some unusual activity. Should I be subjected to 911 calls from asshats like you because I'm out minding my own business and not breaking the law? I'm praying, just praying, that the 911 operator would tell you to go **** yourself and clear the line for people who are calling with real problems. The real tragedy would be if someone having a heart attack had to wait a second longer so this clown could spout his nonsense about people who are not committing crimes.

Again, I've changed my tune on this case in general in terms of his guilt, or the evidence they have, but all the mall cop jokes are appropriate to him. Martin as far as I know was out there minding his own business, and if Zimmerman would have just kept on driving to the store he wouldn't be in this mess and he wouldn't have killed someone.

I get what you're saying. You don't understand Zimmerman's perspective so you've completely disregarded it. I don't agree with Zimmerman or what he did. I have, however, made an effort to see this through his eyes in an honest a way as I'm capable of.

Zimmerman does have his own account of what happened. Several of your are throwing your hands in the air saying all you want to do if find out what really happened. You guys do realize you're not saying Zimmerman's right or even that he's telling the truth to start with the story he's given and work from there, right?

About what Zimmerman said to the operator. Well, sounds just like a cop (in this case a wannabe cop). So paint him like a nutjob, sure. Sounds just like a cop. So his actions are unreasonable and even villainous? Someone being ridiculously overzealous about crime in their neighborhood is laughable, so obviously he had an ulterior motive?

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something" Was Zimmerman wrong? Martin had drugs in his system and it looks like he had smoked pot within an hour or so of his encounter with Zimmerman. So had he just made a munchie run or was his trip to the store a pretense to get out of his dad's house so he could smoke pot? And being out and about in the neighborhood looking for a spot to light up is absolutely suspicious. It would look just like someone stalking around casing the place for a robbery.

You've seen the pics of Martin with a gun? That gun was obviously obtained illegally as Martin is not old enough to legally purchase a handgun. He was also growing a marijuana plant. So there have certainly been times in Martin's life when he had been up to no good.

Again. Just put blinders on and ignore Zimmerman's perspective because you would never act the way Zimmerman did. But if you want to discuss this case while ignoring half of it, I'm out.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I get what you're saying. You don't understand Zimmerman's perspective so you've completely disregarded it. I don't agree with Zimmerman or what he did. I have, however, made an effort to see this through his eyes in an honest a way as I'm capable of.

Zimmerman does have his own account of what happened. Several of your are throwing your hands in the air saying all you want to do if find out what really happened. You guys do realize you're not saying Zimmerman's right or even that he's telling the truth to start with the story he's given and work from there, right?

About what Zimmerman said to the operator. Well, sounds just like a cop (in this case a wannabe cop). So paint him like a nutjob, sure. Sounds just like a cop. So his actions are unreasonable and even villainous? Someone being ridiculously overzealous about crime in their neighborhood is laughable, so obviously he had an ulterior motive?

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something" Was Zimmerman wrong? Martin had drugs in his system and it looks like he had smoked pot within an hour or so of his encounter with Zimmerman. So had he just made a munchie run or was his trip to the store a pretense to get out of his dad's house so he could smoke pot? And being out and about in the neighborhood looking for a spot to light up is absolutely suspicious. It would look just like someone stalking around casing the place for a robbery.

You've seen the pics of Martin with a gun? That gun was obviously obtained illegally as Martin is not old enough to legally purchase a handgun. He was also growing a marijuana plant. So there have certainly been times in Martin's life when he had been up to no good.

Again. Just put blinders on and ignore Zimmerman's perspective because you would never act the way Zimmerman did. But if you want to discuss this case while ignoring half of it, I'm out.

Ok, I get what you're saying. I don't, however, see how it is relevant at all whether Martin was on drugs or had just recently smoked pot. So, if Martin was 'up to no good' that's one thing, but if 'he is on drugs or something,' then that's another, and another that is, as far I see, totally irrelevant. There is no linear line from smoking pot to posing threat to property. In fact, I suspect that the casual link is quite, quite low.

I understand Zimmerman's perspective, I still think he (based on info I have) over reacted and took actions that quite needlessly led to a totally and easily avoidable tragedy. Understanding one's perspective doesn't include any obligation to concede that the actions following from it were appropriate. Perhaps more understandable but not necessarily appropriate.

But again, I am only judging based on what info I have (or have read). I don't claim to know exactly what happened.

 

[Gameface]

Exactly.

The truth of the matter is, Zimmerman has a long history of this type of nonsense. He clearly was more motivated by this imagined "power" and "authority" than with any altruistic acts.

Like most mall cops, he had self esteem issues.

Sadly, for both parties, he picked on the wrong kid. I just wish that he hadn't died. Zimmerman deserved an *** beating. Trayvon did not deserve to be killed. I think if you put most folks on this board in Trayvon's position and you'd see a physical conflict occur. Wonder if they'd be shot too?

I honestly think this is a real problem (I discussed it earlier in this thread with OB).

But if I'm going to go against my better judgement and attempt a meaningful discussing all I ask is we keep name calling and insults out of it. Fair?

Anyway, the problem in my mind is this:

If threatened with life or limb a person has the right to defend himself with lethal force. (can we agree?)

So just as you describe, is it okay for an overzealous community watch captain to pester people in the neighborhood? Going so far as to stalk them and chase them if they run? I think if we take Zimmerman and the killing out of this it gets harder to say that no neighborhood watch volunteer should ever try to keep an eye on suspicious behaviour. So if we say it is okay for neighborhood watch volunteers to watch people and even follow them then we're saying that Zimmerman's initial actions were acceptable.

But this isn't only about Zimmerman and the neighborhood watch. There has been a large concealed carry movement over the last 10 years or more. Many states that didn't allow concealed carry have started allowing it and in general states have move to a "shall issue" status as opposed to a "may issue" status, meaning you don't have to justify your need to conceal carry, you just have to show that you are not disqualified from doing so. So the number of people carrying concealed I think it's safe to say is at an all time high and it's only getting higher. So for me we need to establish a more robust set of "rules of engagement." The Zimmerman case is a good example.

The case in Utah where a neighborhood watch volunteer (and his buddy) were following three girls around because they seemed suspicious. The girls ran home and told on of their dads. The dad got his gun and went out to find out what these old guys were doing bothering his daughter. The NWV, who also was a CCL holder, was also carrying a gun.

In the Utah case you have CCL holder in a confrontation with an armed father. Both have a seemingly legitimate concern. The NWV is keeping an eye on some potential trouble making kids. The dad is trying to protect his daughter.

When the dad confronts the NMV (details hazy) they both draw and the dad shoots the NWV.

The dad tried to claim self defense. The judge called that claim ridiculous.

So I want a solid definition of when a person losses the right to self defense. Can I lose my right to self defense if all of my actions are justified? Can I only lose my right to self defense if I commit a crime? Do I lose my right to self defense anytime someone feels threatened by my actions? If I'm the 51% aggressor in a mutual confrontation do I lose my right to self defense but if I'm the 49% aggressor do I retain my right to self defense?

Was Zimmerman's right to self defense forfeit at some point? If so, when? As soon as the operator told him to do something and he didn't follow their advice? So anytime a 9-11 gives me an instruction I have to follow it or forfeit my right to self defense? Or was it that Zimmerman basically threatened Martin? So Martin's reaction to the threat can legitimately include physically attacking Zimmerman? And at that point Zimmerman is legally barred from defending himself? So he must curl up into a ball and hope that this justified beating doesn't last too long?

Just let me know at what point Zimmerman lost his right to self defense and please be willing to apply that standard across the board. It's a mess. I admit it's a mess.