George Zimmerman

[FaithManor]

Just saw that Zimmerman has declined to testify at the trial. His right, most certainly, but to me, it means he (or his attorneys) don't think he can hold up under the cross examination.

 

 

Well, that's what a lot of people like to believe. But to be honest, I've met a lot of people that would be innocent, yet unable to handle the stress and break, not because they have something to confess, but their brains aren't hardwired to withstand the intensity of the courtroom experience.

 

Shoot, dh once served on a jury for a civil case in which the 65 year old plaintiff had more than enough evidence, but when put on the stand, it took hardly any questioning at all before she burst out crying and begging to drop the case so it could all be over with...some people have serious nerves and aren't good candidates to take the stand regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

So, as much as everyone would like to take that has a sign of guilt, it really can't be assumed.

 

Faith

[milovany]

Just saw that Zimmerman has declined to testify at the trial. His right, most certainly, but to me, it means he (or his attorneys) don't think he can hold up under the cross examination.

Which means nothing when it comes to his guilt or innocence. It just means he might not handle the stress well, and not answer well accordingly. Or, more likely, it means they feel they have a strong enough case without his testimony and they don't want to risk anything.

[QueenCat]

Well, that's what a lot of people like to believe. But to be honest, I've met a lot of people that would be innocent, yet unable to handle the stress and break, not because they have something to confess, but their brains aren't hardwired to withstand the intensity of the courtroom experience.

 

Shoot, dh once served on a jury for a civil case in which the 65 year old plaintiff had more than enough evidence, but when put on the stand, it took hardly any questioning at all before she burst out crying and begging to drop the case so it could all be over with...some people have serious nerves and aren't good candidates to take the stand regardless of guilt or innocence.

 

So, as much as everyone would like to take that has a sign of guilt, it really can't be assumed.

 

Faith

 

 

Which means nothing when it comes to his guilt or innocence. It just means he might not handle the stress well, and not answer well accordingly. Or, more likely, it means they feel they have a strong enough case without his testimony and they don't want to risk anything.

 

TM isn't ALIVE to speak for himself or tell what happened and GZ won't tell what happened. I see your points but I still think that ultimately, he should be able to be questioned by the prosecutors. Again, I realize it is his legal right not to be but to me, that is just wrong. The jury should have all relevant and available testimony in order to proceed. That includes hearing from GZ. And yes, I also know "why" he doesn't have to testify, so please , no legal lectures (not to those I'm quoting, but anyone who wants to presume that I'm lacking legal knowledge).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

TM isn't ALIVE to speak for himself or tell what happened and GZ won't tell what happened. I see your points but I still think that ultimately, he should be able to be questioned by the prosecutors. Again, I realize it is his legal right not to be but to me, that is just wrong. The jury should have all relevant and available testimony in order to proceed. That includes hearing from GZ. And yes, I also know "why" he doesn't have to testify, so please , no legal lectures (not to those I'm quoting, but anyone who wants to presume that I'm lacking legal knowledge).

 

They don't need him to testify to hear from him - the prosecution entered three different statements from him into evidence (transcript of police interview, walk through with the investigators, and his interview on Hannity). So yes, GZ has told what happened - repeatedly.

[QueenCat]

They don't need him to testify to hear from him - the prosecution entered three different statements from him into evidence (transcript of police interview, walk through with the investigators, and his interview on Hannity). So yes, GZ has told what happened - repeatedly.

 

But did they get to question his statements? Or does he only get to share what he wants to??????????????????????

[charcat13]

But did they get to question his statements? Or does he only get to share what he wants to??????????????????????

It was the prosecution's choice to air those interviews. If it hurt their case that's on them. One does have to wonder at that. It's like they dropped a golden nugget in the defense's lap.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But did they get to question his statements? Or does he only get to share what he wants to??????????????????????

State investigators asked the questions in 2 of those 3 statements. And then the prosecution CHOSE to offer those into evidence. FYI - the defense could not opt to enter those statements.

[LizzyBee]

Has anyone been watching the trial?

 

I don't really think he meant to kill Travon Martin, but he should have never got out of his car. That is the one thing I can't get past.

There was a case in my hometown where a man shot another man in self-defense. There were witnesses to the fact that *at the moment of the shooting*, it was done in self-defense. He was still prosecuted and found guilty of second degree murder because he armed himself and went to the home where the argument and shooting took place. You can't provoke a confrontation and then claim self-defense, and that's exactly what George Zimmerman did. I'll be surprised if he's found guilty, though. If he is found guilty, it will be because the members of the jury, all female, are thinking like moms. As a mom, I sure hate to think that my 17 yo could be stalked and confronted because she's walking down the street in someone else's neighborhood.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It was the prosecution's choice to air those interviews. If it hurt their case that's on them. One does have to wonder at that. It's like they dropped a golden nugget in the defense's lap.

I believe the prosecution may have opened the door to those statements based on questioning the investigators about Zimmerman's "inconsistencies". It is possible the prosecution was concerned that the defense would have cause to bring in those statements, so they determined it was better to offer them into evidence rather than look like they were hiding something.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There was a case in my hometown where a man shot another man in self-defense. There were witnesses to the fact that *at the moment of the shooting*, it was done in self-defense. He was still prosecuted and found guilty of second degree murder because he armed himself and went to the home where the argument and shooting took place. You can't provoke a confrontation and then claim self-defense, and that's exactly what George Zimmerman did. I'll be surprised if he's found guilty, though. If he is found guilty, it will be because the members of the jury, all female, are thinking like moms. As a mom, I sure hate to think that my 17 yo could be stalked and confronted because she's walking down the street in someone else's neighborhood.

Actually, in most states you can provoke a confrontation and still claim self defense if certain criteria are met.

In this case, the state has not been able to prove GZ started a physical confrontation so that is beside the point.

[Pawz4me]

In this case, the state has not been able to prove GZ started a physical confrontation so that is beside the point.

 

I believe that's for the jury to decide.

[swellmomma]

The whole thing confuses me.  Based on how things are here in Alberta, I believe, if a guy followed someone else with a gun and in the end killed them that would be premediated murder because he took the gun with intentions to use it (even if just to scare someone), even if his thoughts were not on killing the boy when he followed him. 

Then again gun laws are tough here.  Heck if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them to protect my family I can be charged with manslaughter or murder.  So the thought that someone could get off after following this young man and then killing him is so foreign to me.

I don't even care if trayvon was a gangster or a straight A student, murder is murder is murder.  There should not be a get out of jail free card when this was so clearly not a self defense case to me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I believe that's for the jury to decide.

In all honesty they never presented any direct evidence. The closest they got was an "ear" witness who obviously is limited in what information she can provide.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The whole thing confuses me. Based on how things are here in Alberta, I believe, if a guy followed someone else with a gun and in the end killed them that would be premediated murder because he took the gun with intentions to use it (even if just to scare someone), even if his thoughts were not on killing the boy when he followed him.

 

Then again gun laws are tough here. Heck if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them to protect my family I can be charged with manslaughter or murder. So the thought that someone could get off after following this young man and then killing him is so foreign to me.

 

I don't even care if trayvon was a gangster or a straight A student, murder is murder is murder. There should not be a get out of jail free card when this was so clearly not a self defense case to me.

Alberta has no laws on self defense?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The whole thing confuses me. Based on how things are here in Alberta, I believe, if a guy followed someone else with a gun and in the end killed them that would be premediated murder because he took the gun with intentions to use it (even if just to scare someone), even if his thoughts were not on killing the boy when he followed him.

 

Then again gun laws are tough here. Heck if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them to protect my family I can be charged with manslaughter or murder. So the thought that someone could get off after following this young man and then killing him is so foreign to me.

 

I don't even care if trayvon was a gangster or a straight A student, murder is murder is murder. There should not be a get out of jail free card when this was so clearly not a self defense case to me.

From the Canadian Criminal Code:

 

Criminal Code, Sections 34-37

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

 

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

 

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

© he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

 

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

 

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

[swellmomma]

Alberta has no laws on self defense?

From what I understand the laws only protect you if you have to use extreme force to escape.  So like I could shoot to wound in the arm or leg in order to escape but not shoot to kill.  Heck if I hit a burglar over the head with a frying pan and he dies from the head injury it then up to the prosecutor to determine if this was a case worth trying, based on was the force used required to escape or did I have an exit and I came up behind the guy and brained him with the pan instead.  I have not read up on them myself, just going on what I was told by the police years ago when we had a psycho after us and threatening to kill us (was posted about on the hive when it was happening).  While the police were trying to catch the guy I mentioned I was now sleeping with all my kids in my room with a baseball bat at the ready.  The cop said if I have to use the bat hit the guy's knees not his head, the knees is self defense to escape, the head could result in me being charged with his death. 

 

It does make sense to me when you think of stories like this one why they don't want a blanket self defense any force warranted.  The whole point of self defense is to preserve yourself and escape. 

 

Of course to understand further gun laws are such that it would be pretty dang hard to just grab a gun to protect yourself.  Guns are to be kept in locked gun cabinets with the ammo stored elsewhere.  So in order to use other items for self defense you are up close and personal with the assailant.  Using a kitchen knife to stab a would be rapist in your kitchen is self defense, stabbing him 2-3 times is not in the eyes of the law kwim

 

 

ETA: I see you posted the code at the same time I was posting my reply.  So like I thought there is a code but with fiarly strict guidlines.  The biggest issue is proving the level of bodily harm used was warranted, because that is what determines if it is self defense or not.  I guess that is why I was told to injure to escape not injure to kill.  Now that said if the guy that was after us attacked one of my kids you can bet I would be intent on killing not just escaping and I doubt anyone would ever see it as anything other than pure self defense.

[QueenCat]

State investigators asked the questions in 2 of those 3 statements. And then the prosecution CHOSE to offer those into evidence. FYI - the defense could not opt to enter those statements.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I had not picked up on that. That quells a bit of one of my issues.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

From what I understand the laws only protect you if you have to use extreme force to escape. So like I could shoot to wound in the arm or leg in order to escape but not shoot to kill. Heck if I hit a burglar over the head with a frying pan and he dies from the head injury it then up to the prosecutor to determine if this was a case worth trying, based on was the force used required to escape or did I have an exit and I came up behind the guy and brained him with the pan instead. I have not read up on them myself, just going on what I was told by the police years ago when we had a psycho after us and threatening to kill us (was posted about on the hive when it was happening). While the police were trying to catch the guy I mentioned I was now sleeping with all my kids in my room with a baseball bat at the ready. The cop said if I have to use the bat hit the guy's knees not his head, the knees is self defense to escape, the head could result in me being charged with his death.

 

It does make sense to me when you think of stories like this one why they don't want a blanket self defense any force warranted. The whole point of self defense is to preserve yourself and escape.

 

Of course to understand further gun laws are such that it would be pretty dang hard to just grab a gun to protect yourself. Guns are to be kept in locked gun cabinets with the ammo stored elsewhere. So in order to use other items for self defense you are up close and personal with the assailant. Using a kitchen knife to stab a would be rapist in your kitchen is self defense, stabbing him 2-3 times is not in the eyes of the law kwim

I quoted the relevant criminal codes above. You do not appear to be correct.

[swellmomma]

I quoted the relevant criminal codes above. You do not appear to be correct.

 

So glad you could point that out.  I am sure that just made your day.  I am going based on what I was told by the police during the struggles we had. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So glad you could point that out. I am sure that just made your day. I am going based on what I was told by the police during the struggles we had.

Cops are generally not the best people to ask for interpretations of the law. Sections of the code I posted read very similar to the law in many US states.

[LizzyBee]

Just because it is *statistically more likely* does not mean you start randomly accusing everyone who matches the stats. Law enforcement does not work that way.

 

I think part of the question we have to ask ourselves at this point in our history is whether young males are more likely to commit burglaries or if they are more likely to get arrested or blamed o caught.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bling_Ring

 

http://m.nbcmiami.com/nbcmiami/pm_108215/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yw8P3uDe

 

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/women-sought-in-tucson-burglary-ring-case-people-arrested/article_873b6a74-bc00-11e1-850f-001a4bcf887a.html

 

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/crime/6115829-113/sheriff-furlong-office-call

 

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/20329516/two-women-arrested-in-string-of-burglaries

I googled burglaries committed by female teens and got quite a few hits. I've also seen it in the local news plenty of times.

[LizzyBee]

Martin also obviously stopped running and turned back to confront Zimmerman based on where they met.

Or Trayvon was trying to hide from him and George found him. That's just as likely.

[LizzyBee]

She isn't an eyewitness and could not testify directly as to who started the altercation. 

 

I find it interesting that you ignore that Detective Serino stated under oath that he believed Zimmerman's testimony was "credible".  He and the other investigator also testified that some inconsistencies are to be expected.

Isn't he also the detective that wanted to arrest GZ the night of the shooting? Just because a person's statement is credible doesn't necessarily mean his actions are legal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or Trayvon was trying to hide from him and George found him. That's just as likely.

Not really, no. I suggest you look at a map and a timeline. Martin could have been home well before the confrontation. The ear witness also never referenced Martin saying he was hiding (and hiding while talking on the phone would be odd).

 

Of course, tossing out ransoms theories doesn't really build a case beyond reasonable doubt.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Isn't he also the detective that wanted to arrest GZ the night of the shooting? Just because a person's statement is credible doesn't necessarily mean his actions are legal.

But the actions described by Zimmerman ARE legal. The prosecution is claiming that confrontation did not occur as presented by Zimmerman, so their own detective calling it credible does not support their narrative (which is why the prosecution got the stamens from their own employee thrown out).

[Scarlett]

But the actions described by Zimmerman ARE legal. The prosecution is claiming that confrontation did not occur as presented by Zimmerman, so their own detective calling it credible does not support their narrative (which is why the prosecution got the stamens from their own employee thrown out).

I liked it better when you were agreeing that GZ bears some responsibility for TMs death. 

 

:glare:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I liked it better when you were agreeing that GZ bears some responsibility for TMs death.

 

:glare:

Bears some responsibility /= committed illegal actions.

[zoobie]

Your argument is that it was legal for Zimmerman to pursue Martin, then Zimmerman acted in self defense when Martin allegedly came back towards Z. Why was it not legal for Martin to pursue Zimmerman?

 

Clearly each viewed the other as a threat. Zimmerman viewed Martin as a threat to other people's property. Martin viewed Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety. Who is *more* justified in using physical force in that scenario?

[Liberty]

There are two different conversations going on here. One conversation is about the legal technicalities. The other is about the moral culpability. I don't believe GZ had any business randomly stalking and calling the police on innocent people walking in the neighborhood. Trayvon Martin gave ZERO indication of being a thug or perpetrating any illegal activity. Zimmerman had NO reason to call police, NO reason to follow Trayvon Martin, NO reason to stalk a teenager through the rain, NO reason to confront or question anyone minding their own business. Zimmerman's actions caused the situation. IMO, he is 100% morally responsible for the situation and Trayvon Martin's death.

 

This article really opened my eyes to the atmosphere of the whole neighborhood during that time:

 

Taken from:

http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2012/04/finallyfactual-details-leading-up-to.html

 

A Neighborhood In Fear

 

By the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263 town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.

 

At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.

 

In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data. One morning in July 2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman's front porch and stole a bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the bicycle was not recovered.

 

But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse. On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom, and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.

 

"I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors. Police arrived just as the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running through her backyard and reported it to police. After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.

 

"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week." In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.

 

"Please Contact Our Captain"

 

Police had advised Bertalan to get a dog. She and her husband decided to move out instead, and left two days before the shooting. Zimmerman took the advice. "He'd already had a mutt that he walked around the neighborhood every night - man, he loved that dog - but after that home invasion he also got a Rottweiler," said Jorge Rodriguez, a friend and neighbor of the Zimmermans.

 

Around the same time, Zimmerman also gave Rodriguez and his wife, Audria, his contact information, so they could reach him day or night. Rodriguez showed the index card to Reuters. In neat cursive was a list of George and Shellie's home number and cell phones, as well as their emails. Less than two weeks later, another Twin Lakes home was burglarized, police reports show. Two weeks after that, a home under construction was vandalized.

 

The Retreat at Twin Lakes e-newsletter for February 2012 noted: "The Sanford PD has announced an increased patrol within our neighborhood ... during peak crime hours. "If you've been a victim of a crime in the community, after calling police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman."

 

Emmanuel Burgess Setting The Stage

 

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors. "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

 

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

 

Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2. Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.

 

Three days after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman's grandmother was hospitalized for an infection, and the following week his father was also admitted for a heart condition. Zimmerman spent a number of those nights on a hospital room couch. Ten days after his father was hospitalized, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police. "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy," Zimmerman said, as Trayvon Martin returned home from the store.

 

The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess, he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away. This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin." These assholes," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away." After the phone call ended, several minutes passed when the movements of Zimmerman and Martin remain a mystery.

 

Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest...

[LizzyBee]

But the actions described by Zimmerman ARE legal. The prosecution is claiming that confrontation did not occur as presented by Zimmerman, so their own detective calling it credible does not support their narrative (which is why the prosecution got the stamens from their own employee thrown out).

But apparently there was some debate within the police dept regarding whether Zimmerman's actions were legal. Serino wanted to arrest him. So I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Your argument is that it was legal for Zimmerman to pursue Martin, then Zimmerman acted in self defense when Martin allegedly came back towards Z. Why was it not legal for Martin to pursue Zimmerman?

 

Clearly each viewed the other as a threat. Zimmerman viewed Martin as a threat to other people's property. Martin viewed Zimmerman as a threat to his personal safety. Who is *more* justified in using physical force in that scenario?

Where did I say it was illegal for Martin to (theoretically) pursue Zimmerman? It was illegal for Martin to assault Zimmerman if he did do that.

 

Neither has a good claim for self defense when the other is engaging in a legal, non-violent action. However, Zimmerman did not shoot Martin until he was pinned down and being assaulted. (Note: a witness corroborates Martin was on top, and the prosecution has not been disputing that claim in the last few days of testimony.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But apparently there was some debate within the police dept regarding whether Zimmerman's actions were legal. Serino wanted to arrest him. So I don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

And the DA didn't believe there was a case. Also, you will also find the detective did not want to arrest Zimmerman for second degree murder.

[LucyStoner]

Do I think there is reasonable doubt in a court of law?  Yes, probably.  Do I think there is any doubt Zimmerman made a series of decisions and killed someone, needlessly? No.  If he is acquitted, that does not mean he is "innocent".  Dude is dripping with guilt.  
 

Personally I think those offering an affirmative defense should testify.  I know it is his right not to, but if you say self defense, you should be able to say it yourself.  I won't lose any sleep if the jury defies the law and applies good old common sense here.  Nor will I lose any sleep for the consequences to Zimmerman over this.  Dude should not be carrying a gun (history of DV and assault), much less on a police force.  He has to move, he will have trouble getting work, he will likely never be accepted to a police training program?  Cry me a river.  You kill a kid, there are consequences that apply even if you are acquitted.  

 

Also, the Florida law is the Florida law and IMO needs to be changed.  In my state, you don't get to shoot without trying non-lethal force first.  That makes sense to me.  

[LucyStoner]

I live close to Sanford. They are preparing for riots when Zimmerman in acquitted.

 

Of course there will be protests and likely a riot.  People have a natural tendency to get angry and feel raw emotionally when kids can be killed for walking home with a snack while black.  I'm not going break any windows or loot but I'd join a protest without a second thought on this.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do I think there is reasonable doubt in a court of law? Yes, probably. Do I think there is any doubt Zimmerman made a series of decisions and killed someone, needlessly? No. If he is acquitted, that does not mean he is "innocent". Dude is dripping with guilt.

 

Personally I think those offering an affirmative defense should testify. I know it is his right not to, but if you say self defense, you should be able to say it yourself. I won't lose any sleep if the jury defies the law and applies good old common sense here. Nor will I lose any sleep for the consequences to Zimmerman over this. Dude should not be carrying a gun, much less on a police force. He has to move? Cry me a river.

I agree about Zimmerman making some poor decisions. I also believe it is likely Martin made 1-2 as well.

 

I disagree that someone claiming self defense should be required to testify. And btw, self defense is not exactly an affirmative defense in either 48 or 49 states (as in the prosecution must disprove the defense). And even in the case of making an affirmative defense (example: insanity), the defendant is never required to testify if enough evidence can be provided without them doing so. We should never require defendants to surrender Constitutional rights.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Of course there will be protests and likely a riot. People have a natural tendency to get angry and feel raw emotionally when kids can be killed for walking home with a snack while black. I'm not going break any windows or loot but I'd join a protest without a second thought on this.

Riots? I don't see those happening.

 

Protests? I guess, but to what end?

 

Out of curiosity, why are you sticking with the narrative that he was killed while walking home? Isn't the situation much more complex than that sound bite?

[LucyStoner]

Riots? I don't see those happening.

 

Protests? I guess, but to what end?

 

Out of curiosity, why are you sticking with the narrative that he was killed while walking home? Isn't the situation much more complex than that sound bite?

 

Have you been to Sanford?  Yeah, there is reason to think there will be riots there and perhaps elsewhere. 

 

I am sticking to the story that Martin was walking home because Martin was walking home and Zimmerman had zero legit reason to follow him IMO.  Had Zimmerman not seen him, Martin would still be alive and no crime or incident would have occurred that night.  

 

You rushed to Zimmerman's defense back when this first happened and have held that line.  That is your prerogative.  I have never found anything vaguely credible about him no matter how I try to see it from his perspective and think that he is a pox upon humanity.  You carry a gun, you don't have the moral right to kill people.  I have been attacked on the street and you know what?  I defended myself without killing anyone.  I have zero sympathy for Zimmerman here.  Call me cold hearted.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Have you been to Sanford? Yeah, there is reason to think there will be riots.

 

I am sticking to the story that Martin was walking home because Martin was walking home and Zimmerman had zero legit reason to follow him IMO. Had Zimmerman not seen him, Martin would still be alive and no crime or incident would have occurred that night.

 

You rushed to Zimmerman's defense back when this first happened and have held that line. That is your prerogative. I have never found anything vaguely credible about him no matter how I try to see it from his perspective and think that he is a pox upon humanity. You carry a gun, you don't have the moral right to kill people. I have been attacked on the street and you know what? I defended myself without killing anyone. I have zero sympathy for Zimmerman here. Call me cold hearted.

Yes, I used to live near Sanford. And even so I do not see riots occurring (maybe I am just optimistic).

 

I rushed to Zimmerman's defense? I guess if you twist what I have said. I do know a lot about the case, and in all fairness I do know someone connected to the case (not Zimmerman or a family member but rather someone with a legal connection). My biggest issue with this case has been the repetitive incorrect facts and strawmen that keep getting trotted out.

[poppy]

Out of curiosity, why are you sticking with the narrative that he was killed while walking home? Isn't the situation much more complex than that sound bite?

One the one hand, yes it is more complex than that statement.

On the other hand, it is as simple as that.

 

Guy was getting a snack at the corner store, chatting with a friend on the phone, doing nothing wrong, when he sees a truck watching him. He walks away. The truck follows. Martin runs, gets off the street, and according to Zimmerman ran behind some houses at this point. The driver gets out and runs after him. (Later, the 911 operator tells GZ to stop following) And then..... no one really knows. What a terrifying scenario. And it happened because the kid walked home with a snack and looked suspicious to the neighborhood watch captain.

[Scarlett]

Yes, I used to live near Sanford. And even so I do not see riots occurring (maybe I am just optimistic).

 

I rushed to Zimmerman's defense? I guess if you twist what I have said. I do know a lot about the case, and in all fairness I do know someone connected to the case (not Zimmerman or a family member but rather someone with a legal connection). My biggest issue with this case has been the repetitive incorrect facts and strawmen that keep getting trotted out.

 

 

Ah ha!  I knew it!

 

I will admit to not keeping up with it that much....but as I said on page one of this thread I just cannot get past GZ getting out of his car.  That alone does not make him guilty of murder but he loses any sympathy he may have had with me.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, I used to live near Sanford. And even so I do not see riots occurring (maybe I am just optimistic).

 

I rushed to Zimmerman's defense? I guess if you twist what I have said. I do know a lot about the case, and in all fairness I do know someone connected to the case (not Zimmerman or a family member but rather someone with a legal connection). My biggest issue with this case has been the repetitive incorrect facts and strawmen that keep getting trotted out.

 

I have a sharp memory.  We went round and round with you defending Zimmerman last winter.  That is why I say you rushed to his defense.  You can also say I rushed to Martin's defense.  But everything I have read indicates that this is a situation that Zimmerman created and used deadly force.  Because someone draws a different conclusion that you that does not mean they are relying on straw men and bad logic.

 

 Do you dispute that if Zimmerman had not found Martin suspicious that Martin would have not been killed?  Do you think this would have played out this way had Zimmerman killed my middle class white behind?  Zimmerman killed a kid who had not committed a crime prior to Zimmerman's 911 call and Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 for little reason on kids a young as my son.   I doubt that Zimmerman would call the cops on my son.  Ignoring the racial issues here is silly.  

 

Maybe those in Sanford won't riot.  But it's a definite concern, and not just in Sanford.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

One the one hand, yes it is more complex than that statement.

On the other hand, it is as simple as that.

 

Guy was getting a snack at the corner store, chatting with a friend on the phone, doing nothing wrong, when he sees a truck watching him. He walks away. The truck follows. Martin runs, gets off the street, and according to Zimmerman ran behind some houses at this point. The driver gets out and runs after him. (Later, the 911 operator tells GZ to stop following) And then..... no one really knows. What a terrifying scenario. And it happened because the kid walked home with a snack and looked suspicious to the neighborhood watch captain.

Your facts are off a bit again, unless you can cite evidence entered into the record stating Zimmerman "ran" after Martin. You also seem to ignore that Martin possibly/likely turned back towards Zimmerman (based on the timeline and where the confrontation occurred).

Zimmerman also stated he quit following Martin and the state offered no evidence to contradict that statement.

 

So no, it is not quite so simple and the narrative that a kid simply walking home was gunned down is false.

[LucyStoner]

One the one hand, yes it is more complex than that statement.

On the other hand, it is as simple as that.

 

Guy was getting a snack at the corner store, chatting with a friend on the phone, doing nothing wrong, when he sees a truck watching him. He walks away. The truck follows. Martin runs, gets off the street, and according to Zimmerman ran behind some houses at this point. The driver gets out and runs after him. (Later, the 911 operator tells GZ to stop following) And then..... no one really knows. What a terrifying scenario. And it happened because the kid walked home with a snack and looked suspicious to the neighborhood watch captain.

 

Exactly.  You hear hoofbeats, most of the time it really is horses and not zebras. 

 

Also, IIRC, Zimmerman was not affiliated with a legit watch organization and by carrying a gun and approaching someone he is breaking all the the training offered by legit watch groups.  At most he should have called and reported it. Maybe skipped the slurs about race.  Then maybe I'd believe 10% of what he says. 

 

Evidence was lost because the police took his word for it.  I know people who have assaulted (not killed) intruders in their own home and faced more initial police scrutiny than Zimmerman did.  

[LucyStoner]

Your facts are off a bit again, unless you can cite evidence entered into the record stating Zimmerman "ran" after Martin. You also seem to ignore that Martin possibly/likely turned back towards Zimmerman (based on the timeline and where the confrontation occurred).

Zimmerman also stated he quit following Martin and the state offered no evidence to contradict that statement.

 

So no, it is not quite so simple and the narrative that a kid simply walking home was gunned down is false.

 

Guy with violent record and gun.   Young man with snack.  He was told by the 911 operator that he didn't need to pursue.  Clearly he did.  A young man died.  A young man who did not have a gun, knife or a bat and was not reported as having committed any crime that night even by the dude who killed him.  

[Matryoshka]

Your facts are off a bit again, unless you can cite evidence entered into the record stating Zimmerman "ran" after Martin. You also seem to ignore that Martin possibly/likely turned back towards Zimmerman (based on the timeline and where the confrontation occurred).

 

So, you're only allowed to "stand your ground" if you have a gun and shoot them?  I thought the whole premise of this "stand your ground" law was that if you feared for your life, you didn't have to run away, you can shoot them.  So, what if Martin feared for his life?  A guy came after him in the dark, with a gun.  He later killed Martin, so I think it's hard to argue he didn't have a reason to fear for his life.  So Martin has to run away, he can't confront his killer, because he doesn't have a gun?  But if he had had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self-defense under the "stand your ground" law?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have a sharp memory. We went round and round with you defending Zimmerman last winter. That is why I say you rushed to his defense. You can also say I rushed to Martin's defense. But everything I have read indicates that this is a situation that Zimmerman created and used deadly force. Because someone draws a different conclusion that you that does not mean they are relying on straw men and bad logic.

I don't take issue with conclusions of some as much as I do the, shall we say...creative version of events they present. I believe that thread was in the spring of 2012 unless there was another I have forgotten.

 

Do you dispute that if Zimmerman had not found Martin suspicious that Martin would have not been killed? Do you think this would have played out this way had Zimmerman killed my middle class white behind? Zimmerman killed a kid who had not committed a crime prior to Zimmerman's 911 call and Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 for little reason on kids a young as my son. I doubt that Zimmerman would call the cops on my son. Ignoring the racial issues here is silly.

Finding someone suspicious is not a crime. Do you deny that if Martin had not been straddling Zimmerman punching him he would not have died?

 

And to defend Zimmerman's call to 911 a little, the neighborhood had been plagued by burglaries reportedly done by young black males. If someone sees a young black male they don't recognize walking among houses and staring into them (what Zimmerman reported), then why wouldn't they make the call?

 

Maybe those in Sanford won't riot. But it's a definite concern, and not just in Sanford.

It is a concern but I believe it is over stated.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, you're only allowed to "stand your ground" if you have a gun and shoot them? I thought the whole premise of this "stand your ground" law was that if you feared for your life, you didn't have to run away, you can shoot them. So, what if Martin feared for his life? A guy came after him in the dark, with a gun. He later killed Martin, so I think it's hard to argue he didn't have a reason to fear for his life. So Martin has to run away, he can't confront his killer, because he doesn't have a gun? But if he had had a gun, he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self-defense under the "stand your ground" law?

*sigh*

Generally you cannot claim self defense against someone acting in a legal manner.

And again, why does everyone ignore what was actually going on when the shot was fired?

Do you honestly believe that thinking someone is creepy or following you gives you the right to assault them? Really?

[Matryoshka]

*sigh*

Generally you cannot claim self defense against someone acting in a legal manner.

And again, why does everyone ignore what was actually going on when the shot was fired?

Do you honestly believe that thinking someone is creepy or following you gives you the right to assault them? Really?

 

I think "stand your ground" is stupid beyond belief.  You should not be allowed to assault *or kill* someone if there are other options.  TM obviously had more reason to fear for his life that night than GZ.  But the law says you don't have to run away if you're in fear of your life, you can turn around and shoot them.  But apparently if you don't have a gun, that changes??  Shooting them is okay, but whatever you do, don't *punch* them. That's kinda nuts.  Shooting someone to me seems a worse crime than simple assault.

 

[LucyStoner]

I am not in the habit of using racial slurs for people I find suspicious or making excuses for those who do.  To say that Zimmerman was operating from a neutral POV is more than a stretch.  There were several threads on this board where unwarranted accusations were made about Martin and his background within days of the story breaking late last winter.  I can't deny quickly seeing Zimmerman as a lying wannabe cop.  But don't play dumb about immediately diving in on the Zimmerman side of things, before there was much more evidence than the 911 call and such to listen to.  

[Mrs Mungo]

I think there is a lot of talking at cross purposes in this thread. 

 

I understand there had been break-ins in the area.

 

Story to illustrate that I understand the feeling:

 

We bought a home that we lived in for 5 years. During that time the neighborhood changed from county to city, changed school districts and it started having similar break ins and issues. My husband was deployed. My next door neighbor on one side was a family, the dad was an ER doc. On the other side of me was a single dad with a daughter. I woke up one night at 4 am out of dead sleep on a weekend when I knew the dad and his daughter were out of town because I heard a male voice (my bedroom was on that side of the house). I peeked out the window and didn't see anyone. I flipped on my bedroom light. I picked up my flashlight and shotgun, opened my backdoor and shined my flashlight around the yard. I still didn't see anyone. The next morning it turned out the the house next door had the front door broken down, but nothing was stolen. I'm guessing they saw me with my shotgun and decided to run away. But, it would not have been okay *and would not have been legal* for me to shoot someone in my neighbor's yard. It would not have been a good idea and could have ended in tragedy if I had confronted men in my neighbor's yard. If I had seen or heard men in my neighbor's yard when I went out there, then I would have called 911. Would they have been gone by the time police got there? Probably. Does that mean I should have confronted them, possibly endangering myself, putting *myself* in danger, then shot them, if I was in enough danger? No, I don't think that would be morally or ethically okay, even if it was legal. I think states that have laws that make that sort of behavior legal should revise their laws.

 

Law enforcement personnel cannot use disproportionate force and have rules of engagement. Military personnel cannot use disproportionate force and have rules of engagement. If you are going to allow *armed citizens* act as a de facto police force in their neighborhoods, then they should have to follow the same sort of rules because that is what we have established is right and moral and ethical in our society. I don't want to live in the Wild West. There are plenty of countries like that which people can move to, if that is how they want to live.