OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[Crimsoncrew]

Guns given to drug lords in Mexico illegally to amp up gun crime rates which made the border area even more dangerous, and making people along the border less tolerant of Hispanics coming across the border. After all those drug lords kidnap white Americans and hold them ransom with guns given to them by this administration, who is trying to take guns away from legal law abiding US citizens.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[NinerSickness]

Small sample sizes are just neat when they suggest what you're reaching to prove. It wasn't an argument when you made it after Newtown and it still isn't one.

Admittedly, causality and correlation are tricky figs (read or see Freakonomics RE: Crime & Roe v. Wade, fascinating stuff), but the only thing that's shown to decrease gun violence in the modern age is increased gun restrictions enforced over a period of years. Speculated fantasies are all an opponent of that idea can suggest to keep the discussion alive.

I was addressing one example spacedoodoo gave me (Austrailia). Everywhere in the world I've looked at what happens the year following gun restrictions, gun crime has gone up. But comparing one country to another isn't as good as comparing one city to another in the same country because there are fewer variables. And places with more gun restrictions simply have more gun crime than the places with lax gun laws.

I don't believe in the idea that laws making it harder on law-abiding people to own & carry guns deters someone from illegally using a gun. I believe the potential for getting shot deters people from illegally using guns.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson I respect the info on all things football. As I do with most posters on here. That's why I come here. But this statement is bullshit. Trayvon started the contact not Zimmerman. The girl who testified, Rachel I believe is her name, said on CNN last night that she told TM to run from the creepy ass cracker rapist, but TM said no I am going after him. He attacked GZ. GZ was NOT told by the cops to not follow, he was talking to a dispatcher. He has every right to follow somebody he thought was acting suspicious. You do realize there was a bunch of robberies in his neighborhood right? And that anyone has the right to perform a citizen arrest. All injuries on TM and GZ plus the eye witness fit the self defense story. The cops told GZ it was caught on tape and he said thank god. If he hunted him down to kill him because he was black, why would he say thank god? Why would he call 911 if he was hell bent on killing this kid no matter what?

Again, he followed someone who was doing nothing wrong, shot, and killed him. The witness statements that night were split on who was on top during the physical confrontation. Rachel didn't say anything for days. Though Zimmerman stated on the call that Martin was running. If you kill someone, you should be in custody until the facts are sorted out. Even if it looks like you have a strong self-defense claim. If you want to talk about bullshit, it's your wild west, shoot first and ask questions later world.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

There was only one eye witness.

That is not true based on the articles I have read. And even the one eyewitness you are referencing didn't see the beginning of the altercation.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Listening to the phone recording. Martin noticed that Zimmerman was following him, so he came closer to check it out. Then Martin took off running, and Zimmerman got out of his car and ran after him. The cops asked if he was following him and told him they don't need him to do that. He kept running, and then he lost him... because the cop asked him where he lived and he gave his address then Zimmerman said, "Oh Crap, I don't want to give it out cause I don't know where this kid is".

Not really sure how people can still see Zimmerman as the victim if he chased someone who was running to get away from him after realizing he was being followed. Zimmerman wasn't a cop, and had no authority to try and run someone down.

Self defense to me is when you're minding your own business and then someone attacks you... it sure isn't when you're playing cop, chasing after people you deem suspicious, and then shooting them in the eventual confrontation that you initiated by chasing after them when they tried to get away from you.

Now watch, everyone who said Martin should have run earlier will now say that by running he looked guilty.

 

[NinerSickness]

That is not true based on the articles I have read. And even the one eyewitness you are referencing didn't see the beginning of the altercation.

I think the articles you've read are wrong. There are others who claim they heard something, but Jonathan Good is the only person who actually saw the fight. No other name has ever been produced.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Yeah Mac I would venture to guess that Zimmerman got out of the car to keep eyes on Martin until the cops showed up. Martin maybe realizing he was being followed took a path that Zimmerman couldn't follow from his car.

The difference in the two's character comes into play now. Martin was probably not afraid to confront Zimmerman. A lot of teenagers have that invincible syndrome were they just don't believe bad things will happen. Martin may have also thought of himself as a bit of tough guy giving his size and taking into account his tweets and what not.

Zimmerman on the hand being a fairly short guy was probably not expecting a face to face confrontation. When the two met Martin might have aggressively questioned what the hell Zimmerman was doing. Zimmerman now face to face with someone he fears as a dangerous burglar is to scared to respond. Maybe Martin got a little physical and pushed Zimmerman causing him to fall down, or maybe Zimmerman tried to turn and run. At some point though things supposedly got physical between the two and one of them went for the gun.

I could see Zimmerman pulling the gun out in fear and shooting without asking questions. I could also see Martin noticing the gun and going for it to disarm what he see's now as a major threat. I don't believe at any point and time did either of these 2 guys ever realize their confrontation was the result of mistaken identity. I believe they both in the heat of the moment held to the belief of who they thought the other person was and the situation escalated from there before anything could be explained.

It's an unfortunate situation they both ended up being in and sadly cost them both their lives. Sure Zimmerman could have just stayed in his car and avoided the whole situation, but everything is always easier to see clearly in hindsight. If someone tells you it's prom night and the roads could be dangerous so you should avoid going out at night, but then you decide to go out and get hit by a drunk driver are you at fault for ignoring prior advice on the situation?

Zimmerman was advised not pursue, but in the heat moment decided he didn't want to lose track of a potential robber. He wanted to make sure right then and there he protected his neighborhood and made sure this person did not get away before the cops showed up. He knew it was a risk to pursue, but he thought he could handle it. The same way the person in my scenario above though they could handle going out despite knowing the roads could be dangerous. You tell yourself nothing bad will happen and then it does.

You talk about the difference in character between the two. Zimmerman had been arrested and charged with assaulting an officer. He had (has?) an alcohol problem. He had a restraining order taken out against him. He was trained in MMA - granted he may not have been good at it - and was carrying a gun. He was trailing one of "these assholes" and a "punk." And he chased Martin when Martin ran. But Martin was clearly the aggressor when they met face to face? I don't take that at face value. There's no doubt Martin got the better of the fight. That doesn't mean he started it.

You also mention Martin's age as a reason he might make bad decisions. That's why I have referred to Martin as a kid. Not because he is small and weak, but because he might be more likely to make impulsive decisions. And when scared, he might be more likely to lash out. Especially if/when running away didn't work. Zimmerman chased someone while carrying a gun and shot him. It's hard for me to say self-defense should apply in that sort of case. Especially when he wasn't seriously injured.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The assault weapons were semi auto. The AR, mini 14 and the rest are semi auto or one shot per trigger pull.

Wanting to ban some semi-automatic weapons is not the same as wanting to ban "all" semi-automatic guns. Your statement above is clearly false.

 

[geneh_33]

Reggie Ball was there, I saw him!

 

[geneh_33]

Did Trayvon's mom testify?

 

[MHSL82]

Why does everyone on MSNBC have a lisp?

Because they are liberal? Just kidding. I don't know and lisps aren't funny.

 

[MHSL82]

Seriously? He followed an unarmed person who was not violating any law, confronted him, shot him, and killed him. You don't think that justifies even an arrest? How anyone can believe that an arrest isn't warranted in that case is beyond me.

Based upon those facts, on the spot they should have arrested him and if they found that he was justified or too little evidence to charge, release. (Because at the time those facts are sufficient to me, but people can disagree.) But since they didn't arrest him on the spot and presumably looked at the facts and first determined not to charge him, then it isn't case closed they had enough to arrest. IMO, they did, but that's just that, an opinion of someone not in that field. (I work in business law.)

I'm not saying it was all political or an agenda, I'll let others claim that. I agree that based upon those facts, I would charge. But I don't work there and the DA has more legal knowledge and experience. They might have been defeatist and didn't charge because they felt this would happen (acquittal), though if they thought that, they maybe should have considered manslaughter more strongly if they chose not to charge on murder because of pragmatics. I'm of the spirit that you should look at what you believe and if you believe he's guilty but don't think you'd win, you should either still try or change the charge. Subject to malicious prosecution, of course. There are real people involved, so in general, I couldn't say to be gung-ho. You should have a conscious on whether you (the DA) feels there was a murder or manslaughter or whatnot).

I don't know, it isn't simply that since they charged they had enough, though I think they did. It also isn't because he was acquitted that they didn't have enough to charge. It was his judgment to not charge and then the government's decision later to charge. That tells me there's a split on the belief whether that was enough to arrest.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

It doesn't give him any special rights, but there is no law saying you can't chase down or stop a potential crime in progress. It's just that doing such is by far usually the worst idea you could act on and no law enforcement agency is ever going to suggest a civilian put themselves in harms way.

The thing is if Martin had turned out to be a robber then Zimmerman would be touted as a hero for having the balls to go after him. Instead Martin turned out to just be a 17 year old guy walking out at night which changes everyone's perception of the situation.

Take something like Flight 93. Do you think if anyone on that flight had been able to call the cops they would have been told to stay seated and do as told or get up and fight back? They acted out against reasoning and stopped what could have been the 3rd massive tragedy of the day. The people on that flight that stood up and fought back are heroes.

If you look at the story from a what if stand point though. What if it was just a middle eastern man getting up to use the bathroom. What if he got jumped and beat up as a terrorist just based on someone's paranoia. Now suddenly these people are not heroes but racist villains who profiled an innocent person.

Flight 93 was a clear act of terrorism and the people thought bravely fought back deserve to be heroes, but no authority figure would ever have suggested to them to do what they did. Our media though paints a very thin line between being a courageous hero and being a racist targeting villain. It's pretty much if you're right you're right and if you're wrong... well then you end up like Zimmerman.

There's no law that says you CAN "stop a potential crime in progress." The law allows a citizen to make an arrest when he or she observes a misdemeanor, or when the person has committed a felony. Zimmerman didn't observe any crimes, and Martin had not committed a felony.

As for the Flight 93 analogy, those people saw terrorists engaged in multiple felonies. Not to mention they were in a position where there was no way to get assistance. Authority figures might not have suggested the actions that they took, but they sure as shit wouldn't have told them not to do what they did. And my recollection of that incident is that people on the plane had heard about the twin towers when they called loved ones on their cell phones, and only after that did they take action. Given that, I think it's likely authority figures would have recommended doing something. That comparison is just distasteful in this conversation.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That doesn't matter, a dispatcher has no authority over someone because they are not expects on anything. Listening to a dispatcher isn't always the best course of action because they don't always know the best course of action.

No, he doesn't have any authority. But when you ignore what a trained law enforcement dispatcher tells you about following someone - even if that is just a suggestion and not an order, and then you kill the person you are following, it sure makes self-defense hard to swallow. At least for some people.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You are right and I am wrong on him calling 911. That is my bad. But yes they represent the police office. But that doesn't mean he has to stop trailing the "suspect". He was well within his rights to keep following. Was it smart? Depends on what the outcome is. If Martin would have been a robber or something worse, like stated before he is a hero. In this case, Martin was not a robber and a tragedy happened.

"Well within your rights' is not the same as right. I think it's a little silly to have laws that allow someone to start a fight, get their ass kicked, and then shoot the other person "in self-defense." I'm not saying Zimmerman started this fight - we don't know who did, despite all those who are convinced Martin did so - but the law in Florida would apply regardless. And that's ridiculous IMO.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I think the articles you've read are wrong. There are others who claim they heard something, but Jonathan Good is the only person who actually saw the fight. No other name has ever been produced.

You already posted this, and I already watched it. Jonathan Good did not see the start of the fight. At some point, he saw what he believed was Martin on top punching downward. "Standing his ground" as it were, and using non-lethal force when confronted by a a strange, armed man at night. And even Good was not 100% certain it was Martin on top.

There was at least one female witness who said she saw Zimmerman on top, though it may have been after the shots were fired.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Based upon those facts, on the spot they should have arrested him and if they found that he was justified or too little evidence to charge, release. (Because at the time those facts are sufficient to me, but people can disagree.) But since they didn't arrest him on the spot and presumably looked at the facts and first determined not to charge him, then it isn't case closed they had enough to arrest. IMO, they did, but that's just that, an opinion of someone not in that field. (I work in business law.)

I'm not saying it was all political or an agenda, I'll let others claim that. I agree that based upon those facts, I would charge. But I don't work there and the DA has more legal knowledge and experience. They might have been defeatist and didn't charge because they felt this would happen (acquittal), though if they thought that, they maybe should have considered manslaughter more strongly if they chose not to charge on murder because of pragmatics. I'm of the spirit that you should look at what you believe and if you believe he's guilty but don't think you'd win, you should either still try or change the charge. Subject to malicious prosecution, of course. There are real people involved, so in general, I couldn't say to be gung-ho. You should have a conscious on whether you (the DA) feels there was a murder or manslaughter or whatnot).

I don't know, it isn't simply that since they charged they had enough, though I think they did. It also isn't because he was acquitted that they didn't have enough to charge. It was his judgment to not charge and then the government's decision later to charge. That tells me there's a split on the belief whether that was enough to arrest.

I don't know how they didn't arrest him that night. I find it shocking. Perhaps they shouldn't have arrested him 40+ days later, but it blows my mind that he walked away the same night he shot and killed someone who was running away from him.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't know how they didn't arrest him that night. I find it shocking. Perhaps they shouldn't have arrested him 40+ days later, but it blows my mind that he walked away the same night he shot and killed someone who was running away from him.

Agree, and the fact that they got beyond the preliminary hearing shows they had enough to arrest. I mean, they had enough to get to the jury. That isn't saying much, but there were no directed verdicts, etc. (though that would be near impossible when you have someone not denying that he followed and shot the guy and it came down to determining his fear - juries decide the facts, judge interprets the law (though interpret may not be the best term)). I'm not finding good examples of directed verdicts for acquittals, but they do happen (as opposed to the prosecution dropping charges, etc.). Here's one, though I didn't read the whole thing: Directed Verdict of Acquittal in Murder Case

 

[geneh_33]

Why didn't the prosecution call the other eye witness to the stand?

 

[yossarian]

Directed verdicts for acquittals rarely happen, no judge wants to be on the hook for acquitting a defendant accused of a serious crime. For all the outrage on this board, to me the fact that had Zimmerman been convicted I seriously doubt an appeals court would have found the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction and overturned the jury's verdict. That in itself tells me it was an open enough question that people need to relax.