OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[yossarian]

I was in a situation where this applies. I was waiting for a friend in a bad neihgbourhood outside a restaurant, and 3 guys who were getting high in a car didn't like that I was just hanging around. They told me to leave. I told 'em I'm not leaving 'cause I'm waiting for a friend here. They then threatened me, and since I'm nursing a serious neck injury I walked over to the next parking lot rather than get into a fight (I didn't want to be in pain the rest of my life because some assholes attacked me). But if I were armed & they attacked me, I'd be in jeopardy of going to jail if I shot them without a stand-your-ground law.

That's not entirely correct, if you were armed and you were attacked by 3 guys and you legitimately felt your life was in danger, any self defense statute would protect you. Here's why this whole law is kind of silly, under your scenario the only way the absence of a stand your ground law wouldn't protect you, is if you could have retreated without fearing for your life and you didn't. In other words, if 3 guys attack you outside of your home, and you legitimately think that if you retreat they will catch you and pummel you, you have the right to fight back, with deadly forced if necessary, stand your ground law or not.

 

[NinerSickness]

That's not entirely correct, if you were armed and you were attacked by 3 guys and you legitimately felt your life was in danger, any self defense statute would protect you.

True, but some district attorney could bring charges against me if he felt I had an opportunity to flee (if there isn't a stand-your-ground law of course; I don't know if there is in CA or not). I don't want prosecutors to be able to throw people in jail who were just minding their own business & were attacked by some thugs.

 

[erckm510]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

You mentioned in your first post about stand your ground that it meant it allowed you to use lethal force. Nobody is questioning stand your law regarding people on your property.

How's that?

Not every state allows you to carry a gun.

I'm not "throwing out" labels. Eric Holder is a liberal. That's a fact not a label. He & people in his camp are constantly trying to empower criminals, and I think that's a load of crap.

Then use Holder and his camp because your wording implied all liberals.

 

[NinerSickness]

Then use Holder and his camp because your wording implied all liberals.

Fair enough.

 

[Ibangedlolojones]

i'm just trying to show that both made bad decisions that lead to this tragic event. I feel place the blame solely on one or the other is wrong. They both made the situation worse than it needed to be.

Agreed but one paid the ultimate price and the other is at home eating a bag of cheetos about now.....somehow it doesn't feel so equitable to me.....

 

[EaseUrStorm]

Ok, my fault. I thought the post was trying to refute that he pursued him because their was no running. I was just trying to say that either way he was following him, but that was my fault for mixing up the point. I've actually heard people say he wasn't following him, just trying to find the right address like he told police he was. There's a line between believing everything he says and thinking he's lying about everything. People need to look at what is discoverable easily and therefore less likely to be a lie and what would greatly affect the interpretations of his actions (like you said walking/running distinction). Even when it could have a big effect, he won't always lie or always tell the truth and the truth can be interpreted differently.

Those are good points.

Yes, he said in the reenactment that he got out of the car to look at the street sign and walked across the walkway to see the sign. But later said back at the station that he was pursuing him. I think it's pretty clear he was pursuing him but the question is how?

You have to read between the lines because anyone in their right mind is going to recall small details in a more favorable light to avoid going to jail. The stories will also be different due to perspective. But what you can do is line up everything he said to the timeline, the calls to the police, the physical evidence, and to the witnesses and see if there are any glaring discrepancies. He was very open to police, told them that he shot the guy, and cooperated. He gave them the walkthrough reenactment the next day before he got the lawyer and it checked out. What I have an issue with is how the media portrays it, compared to just looking at it through the facts. As of yesterday one lady on TV said 'well how is a 12 year old going to fall asleep at night now?' WTF does that have to do with anything! He was 17 and I'm sure plenty of other people have been murdered around the world since this thing happened that no one will ever hear about.

 

[MHSL82]

The stories will also be different due to perspective. But what you can do is line up everything he said to the timeline, the calls to the police, the physical evidence, and to the witnesses and see if there are any glaring discrepancies.

Here's a video on a timeline that shows the discrepancies and the confirmed facts. There, of course, are some guesses.

I'd start at 27 minute mark, but the whole thing has parts of it that are interesting (except for one segment passed for time). It is a bit scary to hear the screams for help and the gunshot in the 911 played in real time. The guess of the routes of the two people (41:30) seems plausible and if so, supports Martin.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

MHSL, that is a good video....probably could have been shorter! But informative. I wasn't one that paid attention to this whole story until recently. What I'd never realized, which I suppose should have been kind of obvious, was that the final 30 - 40 seconds before the fight Martin was saying "he's following me.....he's getting closer".

For ALL the people I'd heard say "Martin doubled back and attacked Z", that does not add up at all with the girl's testimony about their conversation. Zimmerman was following him before any confrontation. The video's theory that Martin was hiding from him, then Z found him after coming all the way around the block, does seem plausible.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

Agreed but one paid the ultimate price and the other is at home eating a bag of cheetos about now.....somehow it doesn't feel so equitable to me.....

life isn't fair, sorry things turned out the way they did but that's life.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

But do you know for sure Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin or are you assuming he did? How do you know Martin didn't go for the gun? How do you know Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun just to detain Martin, and then got attacked? How do you know there was not a fight over control of this gun?

I'm reluctant to dredge this up, but I haven't been able to visit the board in awhile and wanted to address this.

No one knows what happened with the gun except Zimmerman. It's part of why I think he should have to prove he was acting in self-defense once the prosecution establishes that he followed and killed Martin.

As far as pulling out a gun "just to detain Martin," pointing a gun at someone is a crime in most states. Can't speak for Florida. More importantly, there was absolutely no basis for Zimmerman to detain Martin. That detention most likely would not be valid even if Zimmerman were a uniformed police officer, much less a sketchy citizen who likes to follow people around residential neighborhoods. And the only reason a police officer could claim he had a reasonable suspicion would be flight FROM A POLICE OFFICER. That doesn't apply to weirdos in orange jackets driving pickup trucks.

Finally, as I have mentioned before, Martin also has a right to defend himself. Especially when confronted for no apparent reason by a man with a gun.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

In any case George having the gun is the reason Martin is not dead. If he didn't have the gun on him maybe neither of them see the immediate threat of death starting them down. Again though it's such a thin line our society lives on because what if George didn't have the gun but Martin did? How does that change this story? Do we still look at the same way giving the outcome?

What if Martin had shot Zimmerman? How differently do you think the media attention would have been on this trial? Do you think he would have been charged? Do you think he could have won a trial based on the same evidence?

In a fair trial the outcome would have been the same either way in my opinion.

As for the rest of this, I'm having trouble following you. Martin is dead. Was the "not" accidental, or did you mean to say it's the reason Zimmerman is not dead?

It's my opinion that if George didn't have a gun on him, he wouldn't have gotten out of the car. But if he had, and Martin had a gun and shot and killed him, Martin should have been charged. Convicted? Given Florida's law, I don't know. He was being followed at night by some random guy. If he was in fear of his life, apparently he would be justified in killing Zimmerman. Given who was following whom, I have somewhat less of a problem with that, assuming he genuinely was in fear for his life.

Finally, people seem to think Martin wouldn't have been charged if he had shot Zimmerman. I wonder what country those people are living in.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

It is a very loose assumption in this case that he "chased" TM. The assertion from the other side is he was returning from his car after walking back from the street sign, which was probably not coincidentally in the direction that TM ran. That is where Zimmerman claimed TM appeared and assaulted him. The physical evidence supported Zimmerman's account of the story. It was not proven that he chased him, just like it was not proven who started the physical confrontation. Here is to better picture the area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpCnpnHODI

It is an assumption. What we know for certain is that Zimmerman reported that Martin was running, and it sure as shit sounds as if Zimmerman is also running immediately after that.

It is also an assumption that Martin returned and attacked Zimmerman, one with far less objective evidence.

Out of curiosity, how would you expect the prosecution prove that Zimmerman was chasing Martin when the only witness to those events, other than the shooter, is dead? Same goes for starting the physical confrontation. That's why the law is ridiculous. Zimmerman killed the only person who could have testified against him.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

calling the cops for someone following you might get them there quicker, or they might have told him that is a neighborhood watch person following you and the crisis might have been adverted.


Okay, since you siad you might have ran away. So why didn't Martin run away, i mean that's what most people do in this type of situation.

He did.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Now if you actually read through this you will see terms like "pistol grip" on semi auto weapons. So even if your gun isn't on the list but has a pistol grip, it counts too. Because a pistol grip makes you fire faster.... just like an adjustable stock.... or a detachable mag....

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

This bill would have no effect whatsoever on the VAST majority of semiautomatic pistols. The "pistol grip" applies only to rifles. I'm not saying it wouldn't ban a lot of weapons. But you said "all" semiautomatic weapons, and that is FAR from the truth.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Non-lethal force? How do you know if they were or were not lethal? A man was killed where I live after 1 punch. It has happened plenty of times. https://www.google.com/search?q=man...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

So who are you to determine when somebody SHOULD fear for their life? If being pinned down with a broken nose being punched in the face repeatedly, and his head having lacerations and bumps on it from being hit on the concrete is not enough to fear, I am going to need a list made up so I know when I can fear for my own life.

How do I know Martin didn't use lethal force? Seriously? Maybe it's because Zimmerman is still alive?

You are right, people can be killed by a single punch. Heck, people have been killed by gentle pushes when they tripped and fell. In light of that, is the threat of a punch enough to justify lethal force in your opinion? What if someone gets in your face without touching you? Where's the cutoff in the that direction? Absolutely anything is life-threatening, so you can take preemptive measures to "stand your ground?"

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The defense didn't even cite that law. Stand-your-ground is law in 30 or so states. It's legal to kill someone in self-defense in all 50 states.

Stand your ground prevents a prosecutor from asking something like "Why didn't you run in your bedroom and lock the door instead of shooting the guy who broke into your house?" and using that as a legal basis to charge you with a crime. In other words, you're not legally required to flee if it's possible to flee. You can also shoot a guy who breaks into your house & retreats from you. If he's dead in the living room with a bullet in his back, you won't be charged with a crime for shooting a guy who was trying to flee.

Zimmerman's acquittal was 100% based on the self-defense law not the stand-your-ground law. You can't flee if a guy is straddling you & pummeling you in the face.

I just don't understand people who believe a residential burglary warrants the death penalty. I'm not certain that is an accurate statement of the stand your ground law, but if so, that law is so fucked up it's unbelievable. Why should someone ever be found innocent of some criminal act for killing someone WHO IS RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM???

As for self-defense, many states require the person who initiates a physical altercation to attempt to disengage before using lethal force. Florida does not. It's not stand your ground, but it's a similar concept. And is equally silly in that it allows a person so start a fight, lose the fight, and then kill someone "in self-defense."

 

[darken65]

He did.

At what point did Martin run away? ? Did he not have a battle with Zimmerman?

 

[Kinzu]

As for the rest of this, I'm having trouble following you. Martin is dead. Was the "not" accidental, or did you mean to say it's the reason Zimmerman is not dead?

It's my opinion that if George didn't have a gun on him, he wouldn't have gotten out of the car. But if he had, and Martin had a gun and shot and killed him, Martin should have been charged. Convicted? Given Florida's law, I don't know. He was being followed at night by some random guy. If he was in fear of his life, apparently he would be justified in killing Zimmerman. Given who was following whom, I have somewhat less of a problem with that, assuming he genuinely was in fear for his life.

Finally, people seem to think Martin wouldn't have been charged if he had shot Zimmerman. I wonder what country those people are living in.

typo, it was suppose to be *now

If Zimmerman was on top of Martin punching him in the face and Martin shot and killed him. Then the out come of the charges and trial should have been exactly the same. Though I doubt it would have got the same media coverage. The way I understand how this is all started is because they were not going to press charges on Zimmerman. This upset some civil right groups who pressured for charges to brought on Zimmerman. This is also the reason the whole thing got turned into a racial issue.

 

[darken65]

I just don't understand people who believe a residential burglary warrants the death penalty. I'm not certain that is an accurate statement of the stand your ground law, but if so, that law is so fucked up it's unbelievable. Why should someone ever be found innocent of some criminal act for killing someone WHO IS RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM???

As for self-defense, many states require the person who initiates a physical altercation to attempt to disengage before using lethal force. Florida does not. It's not stand your ground, but it's a similar concept. And is equally silly in that it allows a person so start a fight, lose the fight, and then kill someone "in self-defense."

You are assuming events that cannot be proved. Martin and Zimmerman got into a battle and Martin was killed. IMO Zimmerman is nothing more than a loser who has no life. That being said....no real proof as to what really went down will ever be found. Case in point: If my daughter screamed out in bloody murder fashion I would have no clue that it was her because I have never heard her scream like that. Would you say that TM's Mom knows how her kid would scream?

 

[darken65]

typo, it was suppose to be *now

If Zimmerman was on top of Martin punching him in the face and Martin shot and killed him. Then the out come of the charges and trial should have been exactly the same. Though I doubt it would have got the same media coverage. The way I understand how this is all started is because they were not going to press charges on Zimmerman. This upset some civil right groups who pressured for charges to brought on Zimmerman. This is also the reason the whole thing got turned into a racial issue.

The DOJ ,aka the white house has made this into a racial issue. Eric Holder and the usual ,Al Sharpton ,NCAA, Jesse Jackson are on board to make it so.