Zimmerman/Martin Case

[Gameface]

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.

Have you ever snuck around trying to find a place to light up a doobie? I have.

Have you ever snuck around casing a place for a robbery? I have.

The actions are remarkably similar.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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.

Agreed, and I suppose it is possible that one reason for introducing the evidence was to get it out there for public consumption in the hope that it might sway potential jurors, even if not admissible. Were I a defense attorney, no way I'm not doing that either.

Still, speaking as a non-defense attorney, I find all of it irrelevant to the case in hand.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Have you ever snuck around trying to find a place to light up a doobie? I have.

Have you ever snuck around casing a place for a robbery? I have.

The actions are remarkably similar.

Former, yes, latter, no. But given the quote by Zimmerman, that does not appear to be the context he was thinking of.

 

[Gameface]

Agreed, and I suppose it is possible that one reason for introducing the evidence was to get it out there for public consumption in the hope that it might sway potential jurors, even if not admissible. Were I a defense attorney, no way I'm not doing that either.

Still, speaking as a non-defense attorney, I find all of it irrelevant to the case in hand.

You, me and the judge in the case.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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.

Just curious (I'm not a lawyer those I watch one on TV), can someone legally and justifiably claim self defense if he attacks another person and then when the person responds force for force, the original attacker shoots and kills him? Without knowing the law, it seems to me that the case for self defense is materially weaker in this case and, rather, the case for something akin to manslaughter more reasonable.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but I am skeptical that one can legally claim self defense in all cases in which they are the primary aggressor.

 

[Harambe]

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.

That's a vastly different situation there, and you know it. But you wanna go down that road, great. Lets go.

Little Ms. Zimmerman wants to get some action. She hasn't had any since she contracted HIV from her previous boyfriend. So she puts on her tightest, littlest outfit. Even "forgets" her panties, and goes to the party, even after told this is a bad idea. Ok, no harm no foul. She see's Mr Martin at the same party; one he shouldn't be at either. She goes over to him, and nothing really happens. A little necking, but everything's well under control. Great. We're fine at this point.

But then Mr Martin then walks away, in to the restroom we'll say, she follows him. Mr Martin did not ask her to do that, she was told not to by her father, but Ms Zimmerman has jungle fever and just can't stop. She was not asked to follow Mr Martin into the bathroom, nor invited, but she did anyway knowing what could happen. And it did. And now Mr Martin has died of AIDS.

The evidence contradicts the testimony of people in both camps, so we can't really believe either of them. All we know is that Zimmerman purposely put himself in a situation he knew was dangerous and against the advice of the police department(if you go back to Neighborhood watch guidelines) knowing that if it came down to it, he had lethal force on his side. He did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, he did not say he was there in mind of the safety of the neighborhood. He relied on his gun to get him the final and only word.

To be honest, the fact that he's waived his right to the "Stand your ground" rule is probably the best thing he could have done, since what he was doing could be construed as vigilante justice, which is against the law.

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

Well sure! But the problem here was he put himself in a position where he knew he could need to use it. He didn't have to be, he was advised against it, and regulations state you should not put yourself in that position, but he went in anyway.

What's the safest way to not get your valuables stolen at the gym? Bring a lock?

Heck no. Don't bring your valuables to the gym.

 

[Gameface]

Just curious (I'm not a lawyer those I watch one on TV), can someone legally and justifiably claim self defense if he attacks another person and then when the person responds force for force, the original attacker shoots and kills him? Without knowing the law, it seems to me that the case for self defense is materially weaker in this case and, rather, the case for something akin to manslaughter more reasonable.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but I am skeptical that one can legally claim self defense in all cases in which they are the primary aggressor.

I think that the moment you initiate physical force you lose the right to claim self defense. The case in Utah where the dad pulled his gun on the NWV because they were harassing his daughter, then the NWV pulled his own legally concealed gun in response which resulted in the dad shooting him 3 times causing permanent paralysis. The judge said you can't jump out of your car wielding a gun and claim self defense.

I legitimately wonder what the standard needs to be.

I think that carrying a concealed weapon should have some trade-offs. If you've got a gun you need to avoid confrontation. I'm not saying run away from someone threatening you, but that pursuit is never an option. Running into the middle of a confrontation is never an option. Initiating a physical confrontation is never an option, even if it would have been legal if you were unarmed.

Essentially, by carrying a weapon you've reduced your options and you've reduced your ability to get involved. You now have an obligation to protect your firearm from falling into someone else's hands and you have an obligation to keep from getting painted into a lethal corner.

 

[Gameface]

That's a vastly different situation there, and you know it. But you wanna go down that road, great. Lets go.

Little Ms. Zimmerman wants to get some action. She hasn't had any since she contracted HIV from her previous boyfriend. So she puts on her tightest, littlest outfit. Even "forgets" her panties, and goes to the party, even after told this is a bad idea. Ok, no harm no foul. She see's Mr Martin at the same party; one he shouldn't be at either. She goes over to him, and nothing really happens. A little necking, but everything's well under control. Great. We're fine at this point.

But then Mr Martin then walks away, in to the restroom we'll say, she follows him. Mr Martin did not ask her to do that, she was told not to by her father, but Ms Zimmerman has jungle fever and just can't stop. She was not asked to follow Mr Martin into the bathroom, nor invited, but she did anyway knowing what could happen. And it did. And now Mr Martin has died of AIDS.

The evidence contradicts the testimony of people in both camps, so we can't really believe either of them. All we know is that Zimmerman purposely put himself in a situation he knew was dangerous and against the advice of the police department(if you go back to Neighborhood watch guidelines) knowing that if it came down to it, he had lethal force on his side. He did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, he did not say he was there in mind of the safety of the neighborhood. He relied on his gun to get him the final and only word.

To be honest, the fact that he's waived his right to the "Stand your ground" rule is probably the best thing he could have done, since what he was doing could be construed as vigilante justice, which is against the law.



Well sure! But the problem here was he put himself in a position where he knew he could need to use it. He didn't have to be, he was advised against it, and regulations state you should not put yourself in that position, but he went in anyway.

He didn't waive his right to the "stand your ground rule" what his lawyers did was say that they can raise the stand your ground rule at any point, they don't need to hold a pretrial hearing to determine if the case should be dismissed. It's an odd situation as the stand your ground rule is intended to prevent an innocent person from having to go to trial. Zimmerman is trying to have it both ways, basically.

 

[Gameface]

That's a vastly different situation there, and you know it. But you wanna go down that road, great. Lets go.

Little Ms. Zimmerman wants to get some action. She hasn't had any since she contracted HIV from her previous boyfriend. So she puts on her tightest, littlest outfit. Even "forgets" her panties, and goes to the party, even after told this is a bad idea. Ok, no harm no foul. She see's Mr Martin at the same party; one he shouldn't be at either. She goes over to him, and nothing really happens. A little necking, but everything's well under control. Great. We're fine at this point.

But then Mr Martin then walks away, in to the restroom we'll say, she follows him. Mr Martin did not ask her to do that, she was told not to by her father, but Ms Zimmerman has jungle fever and just can't stop. She was not asked to follow Mr Martin into the bathroom, nor invited, but she did anyway knowing what could happen. And it did. And now Mr Martin has died of AIDS.

The evidence contradicts the testimony of people in both camps, so we can't really believe either of them. All we know is that Zimmerman purposely put himself in a situation he knew was dangerous and against the advice of the police department(if you go back to Neighborhood watch guidelines) knowing that if it came down to it, he had lethal force on his side. He did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, he did not say he was there in mind of the safety of the neighborhood. He relied on his gun to get him the final and only word.

To be honest, the fact that he's waived his right to the "Stand your ground" rule is probably the best thing he could have done, since what he was doing could be construed as vigilante justice, which is against the law.



Well sure! But the problem here was he put himself in a position where he knew he could need to use it. He didn't have to be, he was advised against it, and regulations state you should not put yourself in that position, but he went in anyway.

What's the safest way to not get your valuables stolen at the gym? Bring a lock?

Heck no. Don't bring your valuables to the gym.

The question revolves around the authority of the 9-11 operator (not a police officer, not a legal authority over anything but their telephone) to give orders to Zimmerman and if ignoring those orders forfeits Zimmerman's right to defend himself with lethal force.

My analogy was that getting good advice from an authority figure and ignoring that advice does not reduce your rights in any way. Your right not to be raped or your right to self defense with lethal force. In other words, not following good advice does not give anyone else licence to victimize you without recourse.

I had no idea what the hell your analogy was about. If you'd care to break it down I'll give it some consideration.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think that the moment you initiate physical force you lose the right to claim self defense. The case in Utah where the dad pulled his gun on the NWV because they were harassing his daughter, then the NWV pulled his own legally concealed gun in response which resulted in the dad shooting him 3 times causing permanent paralysis. The judge said you can't jump out of your car wielding a gun and claim self defense.

I legitimately wonder what the standard needs to be.

I think that carrying a concealed weapon should have some trade-offs. If you've got a gun you need to avoid confrontation. I'm not saying run away from someone threatening you, but that pursuit is never an option. Running into the middle of a confrontation is never an option. Initiating a physical confrontation is never an option, even if it would have been legal if you were unarmed.

Essentially, by carrying a weapon you've reduced your options and you've reduced your ability to get involved. You now have an obligation to protect your firearm from falling into someone else's hands and you have an obligation to keep from getting painted into a lethal corner.

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

By the way, I've enjoyed reading this thread and the back and forth with you, JLes, and others. It's been surprisingly reasonable and rational . . . and informative.

 

[Harambe]

The question revolves around the authority of the 9-11 operator (not a police officer, not a legal authority over anything but their telephone) to give orders to Zimmerman and if ignoring those orders forfeits Zimmerman's right to defend himself with lethal force.

To break down the analogy:

A case can be made to illustrate Zimmerman's desire to get rid of bad guys(or, Ms Zimmermans desire to get laid)
A case can be made that Zimmerman wanted to catch a bad guy by getting out of the car, and running after Trayvon(or, Ms Zimmerman wanted to get laid)
A case can be made that he knew he had a gun on him and could use it for "defense"(or, Ms Zimmerman knew she had the HIV virus, and what it can do)
A case can be made that he should not have chased(or, Ms Zimmerman was told not to go to the party)
A case can be made that Trayvon did run away(or, Mr Martin getting up to be in an entirely different room than Ms Zimmerman)
A case can be made that Zimmerman was the aggressor by getting out of his vehicle and chasing(or, Ms Zimmerman following Mr Martin into the restroom with no one asking her to)


No, it has nothing to do with authority of the 911 operator or anyone else. It has nothing to do with waiving your rights. It has everything to do with going out of your way to put yourself in a position that allows you to legally kill someone. Your pivot is on everything else(at what point did x remove the right to defend ones self), mine is on Zimmerman. As neighborhood watch and being briefed by police about it, he knew the rules. And he knew he could kill if he needed to. So he put himself in a situation where that need arose.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Not to belabor this thread more, but I wanted to comment briefly on the Reuters article. First, this was very interesting, and it does give a useful background to what happened. Even then, I don't find that it clarifies anything really. On the one hand, given all that had happened in the neighborhood, one might conclude that Zimmerman was reasonably justified to track Martin, or at least be suspicious of him. It helps understand why he acted the way he did, and casts him in a more sympathetic light. (It also makes him sound like a pretty good guy, which quite possibly he was.) On the other hand, however, one might reasonably interpret all this differently, in a much less sympathetic light. That is, given the rash of robberies and break ins, and the fact that they police were often ineffectual at catching the bad guys, Zimmerman appears to have been highly frustrated, and thus may have become determined to take things into his own hand on that fateful night. So, even here, the situation is murky. Did the preceding events provide context that makes his actions more understandable or even reasonable, or do they provide a context in which he, being frustrated and fed up with what was happening, decides, against the guidelines of the neighborhood watch service and the advice of the 911 operator and arguably common sense, to take matters into his own hand?

I don't know. It's all just a big, tragic flustercluck.

 

[Nate505]

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.

I understand his perspective. I disagree with it and hate people like him. There's the difference.

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or is on drugs." What does that even mean? Since when is this rent a cop qualified to know any of that. So Martin was walking around in the rain stoned. Who cares, I did that all the time as a teenager. Doesn't mean I need an idiot cowboy to go calling the cops on me. And I don't get the connection of finding a place to light up and casing a property at all, unless possibly you are sneaking into someone's back porch area to do that. Which seems rather risky to me. When I went and found places to light up in, I tended to avoid residential areas altogether. At the very least I would find some trees to hid in. From the map it appears he was on a greenbelt area that separated the townhouses, and it appears there are plenty of far more worthy places to get high at, even if between the complexes. It seems like sneaking into someone's back porch area at 7 pm (not exactly a time people are asleep or away from their house) would be pointless when there are plenty of better areas within easy walking distance.

So yeah, I get that Zimmerman is this gung ho rent a cop who really thought he was protecting his community. Most jackasses who butt into other people's business believe they are doing it for some "greater for society" motive. Doesn't mean his perspective is correct or that he should have just minded his own business.

 

[Gameface]

So yeah, I get that Zimmerman is this gung ho rent a cop who really thought he was protecting his community. Most jackasses who butt into other people's business believe they are doing it for some "greater for society" motive. Doesn't mean his perspective is correct or that he should have just minded his own business.

I agree with this statement. I just wonder if being a gung ho jackass rent a cop means he surrendered his right to fight back if attacked?

 

[One Brow]

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.

You have a right to harass and frighten others, and then claim self-defense when they respond?

 

[One Brow]

Well, hasn't Zimmerman said that there were a number of robberies and no one had been caught?

If he said that, he was mistaken. Burglars had been arrested already.

 

[One Brow]

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.

My understanding is that, at one point, Martin approached Zimmerman in the car and asked Zimmerman what he was doing. Zimmerman lied. Then, Zimmerman kept following Martin. To what degree can self defense apply when you escalate a confrontation? I'm not claiming I have an answer in terms of a clear, bright line, but I don't see much of the line being drawn in favor of Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had never left his position, and the attack happened, that would be a clear case of self-defense (much like the father in your example).

 

[GVC]

You have a right to harass and frighten others, and then claim self-defense when they respond?

I hope so. There are several people on my kill list.

 

[One Brow]

I think that carrying a concealed weapon should have some trade-offs. If you've got a gun you need to avoid confrontation. I'm not saying run away from someone threatening you, but that pursuit is never an option.

Do you feel Zimmerman's actions are different from pursuit, as you mean it there? Why?

 

[Revolution 9]

I understand his perspective. I disagree with it and hate people like him. There's the difference.

"This guy looks like he is up to no good or is on drugs." What does that even mean? Since when is this rent a cop qualified to know any of that. So Martin was walking around in the rain stoned. Who cares, I did that all the time as a teenager. Doesn't mean I need an idiot cowboy to go calling the cops on me. And I don't get the connection of finding a place to light up and casing a property at all, unless possibly you are sneaking into someone's back porch area to do that. Which seems rather risky to me. When I went and found places to light up in, I tended to avoid residential areas altogether. At the very least I would find some trees to hid in. From the map it appears he was on a greenbelt area that separated the townhouses, and it appears there are plenty of far more worthy places to get high at, even if between the complexes. It seems like sneaking into someone's back porch area at 7 pm (not exactly a time people are asleep or away from their house) would be pointless when there are plenty of better areas within easy walking distance.

So yeah, I get that Zimmerman is this gung ho rent a cop who really thought he was protecting his community. Most jackasses who butt into other people's business believe they are doing it for some "greater for society" motive. Doesn't mean his perspective is correct or that he should have just minded his own business.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nate505 again.