Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest

[BigSkyBob]

Considering that Zimmerman was the one who engaged him it doesn't matter, if the kid fought back it was self-defense on HIS part.

It matters who touched whom first, not who "engaged" whom first.  The Stand your ground law might have allowed Martin a defense for beating Zimmerman, but, that is a moot point now.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course Zimmerman is going to say he was attacked, it serves his defense. I find it difficult to believe that someone with a gun is going to be screaming for help from someone who is smaller than they are. And he did get out of his car when emergency advised him not to. At any rate, the FBI and DOJ are said to be looking into this, so thank god that Zimmerman isn't just being given a free pass.

Is this any more reasonable than assuming that a physically larger man initiated a beatdown in which he prevailed, but, somehow had a broken nose, then, while sucessfully beating him down decided to shoot him for the Hell of it. Then, after shooting him, he calls out to witnesses to call the police.

[BigSkyBob]

Once again, Zimmerman, by every account, came up, unprovoked in any way, to Martin and initiated the altercation.

No, by all accounts Zimmerman left his car and approached Martin. Zimmerman may very well have initiated a conversation. Whom initiated the "altercation" is a key fact in dispute in this case.

[BigSkyBob]

He doesn't clearly say "f**king coons".  He is clearly a douche and like I said before, he probably murdered this kid for no good reason.  But we need proof of guilt for a conviction in this country, not just a dead kid and an asshat holding a smoking a gun.

even  the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law says that the 911 call provides probable cause for an arrest. He said the law does not give you the right to pursue someone and then find yourself in a situation where you can then claim self-defense.

The scandal here is the local PD. They didn't even bother to check the kid's cellphone to notify his family logging him as a John Doe. And amazingly the kid's body was tested for drugs and alchohol but the shooter wasn't. They even let him keep his loaded gun. If this didn't become a news item, this whole thing would have just gone away and this guy would have got away with murder.

That may have been the intent of the law when he wrote it, but it's not written in the law.  The law says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law never says that if you pursue a suspicious person and then have to defend yourself that the justification doesn't apply.

It SHOULD say that, but it doesn't.  If the law isn't rewritten as a result of this, I'd be surprised.

I'm not saying the guy won't be found guilty - I'm just saying that there's a decent chance that he won't be found guilty.

After reviewing the Florida law I really doubt it applies here.

The section of 776.012 that you quoted doesn't apply because, with the victim being quite obviously unarmed, any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

[BigSkyBob]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

Are you suggesting someone shoot in the chest broke his nose?

[BigSkyBob]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?
[/quote]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

[BigSkyBob]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

[BigSkyBob]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Mentally aging you to eighteen, which presumably would be five or six years after the incident you decribed, I would note that the person's reputation as a "bully" would carry great weight in determining whether, or not, you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

[BigSkyBob]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Whether, or not, George Zimmerman should have been denied a concealed carry permit is one question. Whether, or not, he used his gun in self-defense is another question. If you can't argue why he didn't use self-defense, then you have no case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Appealing to subjective standards of "self-defense"  that revolve around whether, or not, a person had a "reasonable" belief that he faced "great bodily harm" is hardly amenable to assertions of "general principles." The specific facts and circumstances matter a great deal in such cases.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.
[/quote]

You asked an intellectually dishonest hypothetical. I pointed out that it was intellectually dishonest. You amended your hypothetical to one that was more intellectually honest, and, I answered your hypothetical. In response to my answer, you mapped my response to the Zimmerman case even though it clearly did not apply.

I would, also, note the stunning level of hypocrisy you have shown regarding the reasonable use of force. Somehow, using a gun to stop a beating is in your opinion excessive and unreasonable, yet, you don't fault Martin for swinging first, or, after having decked Zimmerman, continuing to beat the man as he lay on the ground.

[BigSkyBob]

The greatest criminal here is the FL legislature for passing such an idiotic law and opening the floodgates of bogus "self-defense" claims. Self-defense was permissable before, but this law is the definition of "unintended consequences".

This ignores the minor detail that Zimmerman's own attorney stated his defense has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" law. He noted Zimmerman acted in "self-defense."


Folks that don't like that law are abusing the facts in this circumstance to rally against it.

[BigSkyBob]

His father wasn't there and was not a witness in any way. He's also got an obvious bias. Why should anyone care what he has to say on the matter?

Well, that's one perspective. Other people prefer to consider all the evidence, which muddies the waters and shows that we can't rush to judgment.

No, it's brute fact. His father wasn't a witness. What part of that do you not understand? His father's statements aren't evidence. He would not be allowed to take the stand and present these in a court of law because at best his statements are hearsay.

Zimmerman's father is retelling Zimmerman's account of what happened. In an American trial, that is "hearsay." In a trial by public opinion, it has whatever weight anyone listening places on it.

There is one very interesting point the father noted: Zimmerman pulled the trigger not because he was being beaten, per se, but, rather, because Martin stated he intended to kill him.

[BigSkyBob]

Two forensic voice identification experts say the cries for help on the 911 tape are NOT George Zimmerman's.

They are not able to definitely say the voice was Trayvon Martin's because they do not have a good sample of his voice.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

Actually, isn't the correct formulation to say that they couldn't make any determination whatsoever as to whether, or not, it was Martin's voice because they simply didn't have a sample?

As to analyzing their "science" two points come quickly to mind. First, they don't say what the expected pattern match is if samples from two different people are compared. If it is 10%, that strongly points to Zimmerman being the speaker. Second, the assumption that someone reporting a suspicious person from the safety of their car, knowing they are armed, constitutes the intense "stress" someone being beaten would exhibit in their voice is a highly dubious assumption, at best.

We know that Zimmerman's neighbor, whom has spoken to Zimmerman on numerous occasions, identified his voice from the 911 tapes.

[BigSkyBob]

What would cause someone to scream for help?

Being chased by a guy with a gun?

And, your theory is that a young man running away from a heavier older man screaming "Help" at the top of his lungs decided to stop and turn around so he could be shot in the chest? Persons whom opt for "flight" rather than "fight" tend to keep running.

[BigSkyBob]

What would cause someone to scream for help?

Being chased by a guy with a gun?

And, your theory is that a young man running away from a heavier older man screaming "Help" at the top of his lungs decided to stop and turn around so he could be shot in the chest? Persons whom opt for "flight" rather than "fight" tend to keep running.

Ok then, being shoved to the ground by a guy with a gun who had been creepily following you around - happy now?

Why would Zimmerman shove him to the ground?

Why would he get out of his car to look for him when the police told him not to pursue?

He did not get out of his truck when the police told him not to pursue.

He got out of his truck when Martin began running.  If Martin ran down the street, it is more likely that Zimmerman would have simply driven around the corner.  So it is more likely that Martin ran along the path behind the townhouses, or perhaps even over on the next street.  Zimmerman reacted and got out of his truck.  It was then that the dispatcher told him not to follow.  Zimmerman acknowledged, and said that "He ran", which implies that he was no longer in sight.

And, if Zimmerman had ran after him, you would have heard his heavy breathing on the call.

[BigSkyBob]

And, if Zimmerman had ran after him, you would have heard his heavy breathing on the call.

Pursuit does not necessarily have to involved running. He could have just continued looking around the area. Either that or he stuck around the area to wait for the police without heading back to his vehicle... at night, in the rain. Which considering he believed that there was a suspicious and potentially dangerous person around would be just about as stupid as pursuing. And if Martin ran and Zimmerman did not continue to pursue, what opportunity would Martin have to initiate the altercation? Are you saying that after running that he turned around and decided to pick a fight then? Seems like contradictory behavior to me.

1) If someone is running away from you, the only effective pursuit strategy is to run after them [or get back in your car and drive towards where they ran.] The alternative to assume that they had ran away, which is what Zimmerman's father said that Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman's father noted that the police asked Zimmerman for an address, and, in response, Zimmerman was walking on the sidewalks towards the front of the townhouses so that he could read an address.

2) Since we know for a fact that Zimmerman was not running in pursuit, we know for a fact that Martin could have ran all the way back to to his father's house without meeting Zimmerman. For some reason, Martin took a path that led him back towards where Zimmerman was when he exited his car.

3) Whether Martin doubled back purposely to confront Zimmerman, or their paths happened to cross, Martin's girlfriend heard the initial exchange as Martin asking if Zimmerman had a problem; Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing; and a scuffle breaking out immediately disconnecting Martin's headset. [Zimmerman's account is Martin asked him if he had a "f------ problem?"]

It is odd that a man would ask someone a question and not allow time for a reply.

[BigSkyBob]

Zimmerman had told the dispatcher to have the police officer call him when he got to the complex.   Why would he go back to his truck?  It makes more sense to find the street address so he could tell the cop.

1. Because as neighborhood watch captain you would think he'd know the streets of his own neighborhood.
2. Because he thinks there's a suspicious, potentially dangerous person around. Why not go to the safety of his vehicle to get some shelter from the rain?

1) In the 911 call Zimmerman described the buildings as near the entrance to the complex. Had he really knew their street numbers why wouldn't he have told the dispatcher immediately from memory?

2) Because he thought Martin ran away, apparently.

[BigSkyBob]

The whole story is so uninteresting to me I can't read any of it.......I think it was memphis who noted that there's no hubub elsewhere when black kids get killed daily in the U.S.

I'm sorry for the family.....and every other family who doesn't merit national attention.

Had the shooter been arrested in a timely fashion, this story would not have mushroomed to the degree that it has. 

Zimmerman was brought to the station for questions immediately after the paramedics looked after his head wound. When you are detained and brought to the police station for questioning that's de facto being arrested. Zimmerman wasn't charged because the all the evidence and witness statements the police had at that time indicated that he had acted in self-defense.