Zimmerman/Martin Case

[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.

 

[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.