199 replies to this topic

[Chris D]

I am 100% in favor of an investigation. However, unlike most people, I am not going to rush to judgement until we know everything. ALl we know is that witness saw one on top of the other in a struggle, and then shots were heard.

We know a bit more than that. We know that Zimmerman followed the kid for a while, thinking he was dangerous, and continued to follow him against the advice of the 911 operator he spoke with. We know Trayvon was on the phone with a friend during a lot of this, up until the moment he was confronted by Zimmerman or ran into him. We know that Trayvon was unarmed and we know that Zimmerman did, in fact, shoot him dead.

Now I'm all for due process, but I do think there's a enough evidence to support an arrest for manslaughter due to negligence on Zimmerman's part. Which, according to my local news, the police tried to do.

[Todd Gambrel]

This is the important thing here. Zimmerman had no reason to continue trailing Martin. IMO, it doesn't matter if Martin physically assaulted him at that point. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, shouldn't have created a situation that lead to some kind of violent encounter, shouldn't have pulled a gun and shot an innocent boy.

First off, he didn't pull it on the boy out of the blue. He pulled it AFTER a struggle ensued, a struggle started by Martin (until proved otherwise)

Second, I'm not so sure I believe that merely following him is "creating the situation".

In fact, part of the current story is that Zimmerman followed Martin, then lost him, was walking back to his car when Martin approached him.

Even still, just following someone does not make you responsible for the whole of the event. What if some woman followed a man around for a while, giving him looks, then the man turns around and tries to rape her, is the women responsibile for creating the situation? No, of course not. Just because Zimmerman followed Martin does not excuse that, UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE, Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

And Chewy, in almost any other state, I would agree that you at least charge him. I still don't think the charges would stick. However, in Florida, stupid as the law is, with the evidence we have, I don't see how the prosecutor would be doing anything but wasting taxpayer money by charging Zimmerman and having a trial. It's just not feasible (based on what we know so far).

The unfortunate situation is that Martin is dead. Therefore, the only evidence, unless some other witness comes forward, is Zimmerman. And, correct me if I'm wrong, that means it is Zimmerman that must be disproved. So if you can't prove Zimmerman wrong, you have no case.

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 30 March 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[Mike Tattoo]

Chewy.............................................. because that's what I'm calling for. Charging someone, means that there is a good chance that a crime occurred, and Manslaughter is negligent actions leading to the death of a person. I believe that Zimmerman should be charged, based on the undisputed evidence.

I’m not sure where you’re from but here in America it doesn’t work that way.

The prosecutor doesn’t really care if a crime has been committed or even what is right or wrong.

A prosecutor cares about one thing and one thing only.

Winning or losing.

If a prosecutor feels like he can’t win a case he’s not going to press charges because at the end of the day it’s all about your stats and no one wants to hire a losing DA. That’s why we see one of the cops was pressing for a manslaughter even though the DA didn’t file any charges.

[Stephen G]

First off, he didn't pull it on the boy out of the blue. He pulled it AFTER a struggle ensued, a struggle started by Martin (until proved otherwise)

Second, I'm not so sure I believe that merely following him is "creating the situation".

In fact, part of the current story is that Zimmerman followed Martin, then lost him, was walking back to his car when Martin approached him.

Even still, just following someone does not make you responsible for the whole of the event. What if some woman followed a man around for a while, giving him looks, then the man turns around and tries to rape her, is the women responsibile for creating the situation? No, of course not. Just because Zimmerman followed Martin does not excuse that, UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE, Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

And Chewy, in almost any other state, I would agree that you at least charge him. I still don't think the charges would stick. However, in Florida, stupid as the law is, with the evidence we have, I don't see how the prosecutor would be doing anything but wasting taxpayer money by charging Zimmerman and having a trial. It's just not feasible (based on what we know so far).

The unfortunate situation is that Martin is dead. Therefore, the only evidence, unless some other witness comes forward, is Zimmerman. And, correct me if I'm wrong, that means it is Zimmerman that must be disproved. So if you can't prove Zimmerman wrong, you have no case.

I agree with much of what Todd said here. There is much evidence of a struggle and I don't think we're going to see Zimmerman end up getting charged.

I do however...recommend he moves out of that area with a level of haste, to avoid getting lynched.

[garjones]

I’m not sure where you’re from but here in America it doesn’t work that way.

Chewy lives in Alaska and is either still studying law or a lawyer by now. He should know how it works.

[Chris D]

Even still, just following someone does not make you responsible for the whole of the event. What if some woman followed a man around for a while, giving him looks, then the man turns around and tries to rape her, is the women responsibile for creating the situation? No, of course not. Just because Zimmerman followed Martin does not excuse that, UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE, Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

I don't think that purposefully tracking down someone you think is probably a dangerous criminal (dangerous enough that you called 911) against the advice of the 911 operator is equal to a woman harmlessly flirting with a guy on the street who then turns out to be a rapist.

[Mike Tattoo]

Second, I'm not so sure I believe that merely following him is "creating the situation".

Some people have made a pretty convincing argument that just by following/stalking Martin Zimmerman had already committed assault.

A thumbnail definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear violence. There’s a case recently where a guy was arrested for assault for just pointing at a police office (The cops claimed he made a gun gesture with his hands and that was enough for them to bust him)

[Arjan Dirkse]

I do however...recommend he moves out of that area with a level of haste, to avoid getting lynched.

True. In fact with stupid laws like that in Florida, I recommend everybody moves out to avoid getting shot.

[Mike Tattoo]

So last time I checked there are 2 conflicting stories on how the confrontation went down.

Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and saying that he was nervous because “some guy” was following him. His girlfriend urged him to run, Trayvon said he was just going to walk fast then she heard him say ‘Why are you following me?” and then another voice saying “What are you doing here?” and then the line went dead. Phone records seem to support that this call was made.

Zimmerman’s story is that he is walking back to his SUV when Trayvon comes from behind and says “Do you have a problem?” Zimmerman says “No” and then Trayvon says “Now you do” and punches him in the face.

What I picked up from this is that in both accounts Zimmerman failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch. Trayvon didn’t say “The cops are following me” or “Security is following me” he said “some guy” is following me.

Does Zimmerman have a uniform? A badge? Anything? Or is he just some dude with a gun out on his own imaginary patrol to fight crime.

In both of these accounts Zimmerman failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch to Trayvon. That should have been the first words out of his mouth but they weren’t.

If “some guy” is following me home at night and I walk fast and try and shake him but he’s still shadowing me then that guy has already committed assault because I’m now fearing violence. There’s no reason a stranger should be following me and if you come within striking distance and don’t have a hell of a good excuse you should probably expect to be attacked.

[stephanie familiar]

A prosecutor cares about one thing and one thing only.

Winning or losing.

true that.

[Todd Gambrel]

So last time I checked there are 2 conflicting stories on how the confrontation went down.

Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend and saying that he was nervous because “some guy” was following him. His girlfriend urged him to run, Trayvon said he was just going to walk fast then she heard him say ‘Why are you following me?” and then another voice saying “What are you doing here?” and then the line went dead. Phone records seem to support that this call was made.

Zimmerman’s story is that he is walking back to his SUV when Trayvon comes from behind and says “Do you have a problem?” Zimmerman says “No” and then Trayvon says “Now you do” and punches him in the face.

What I picked up from this is that in both accounts Zimmerman failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch. Trayvon didn’t say “The cops are following me” or “Security is following me” he said “some guy” is following me.

Does Zimmerman have a uniform? A badge? Anything? Or is he just some dude with a gun out on his own imaginary patrol to fight crime.

In both of these accounts Zimmerman failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch to Trayvon. That should have been the first words out of his mouth but they weren’t.

If “some guy” is following me home at night and I walk fast and try and shake him but he’s still shadowing me then that guy has already committed assault because I’m now fearing violence. There’s no reason a stranger should be following me and if you come within striking distance and don’t have a hell of a good excuse you should probably expect to be attacked.

So if a guy is walking home, lives 6 blocks away, and I start walking home a few seconds after him, and I live 2 blocks farther than him but on the same street so we walk the same way, so it seems like I am following him home, then I have committed assault because the other guy gets scared? And if he approaches me, punches me, and I defend myself, I should go to jail?

Edited by Todd Gambrel, 30 March 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Henry Blanco]

So if a guy is walking home, lives 6 blocks away, and I start walking home a few seconds after him, and I live 2 blocks farther than him but on the same street so we walk the same way, so it seems like I am following him home, then I have committed assault because the other guy gets scared?

In these situations I purposefully walk slower and at the opposite side of the sidewalk so that the person doesn't even have an excuse to think that I'm following him.

[Jim Ohara]

The mental disconnect with this case is astounding, watching people trying to justify the shooting. You cannot kill another citizen in a public place simply because you feel threatened. Even if you're attacked you can't simply kill your attacker. Florida isn't Deadwood (apart from the smell).

Chewy lives in Alaska and is either still studying law or a lawyer by now. He should know how it works.

He's in Philadelphia now. But yeah, he know more about the law than anyone here. Still, it's nice to see the internet's there to tell him he's wrong about the subject he's built his career around.

So if a guy is walking home, lives 6 blocks away, and I start walking home a few seconds after him, and I live 2 blocks farther than him but on the same street so we walk the same way, so it seems like I am following him home, then I have committed assault because the other guy gets scared? And if he approaches me, punches me, and I defend myself, I should go to jail?

Go out tonight and follow some women on the street for a few blocks just a few steps behind them. Make sure to tell us what happens.

[Mike Tattoo]

So if a guy is walking home, lives 6 blocks away, and I start walking home a few seconds after him, and I live 2 blocks farther than him but on the same street so we walk the same way, so it seems like I am following him home, then I have committed assault because the other guy gets scared? And if he approaches me, punches me, and I defend myself, I should go to jail?

In your scenario if I feel like I’m being followed and I pull some evasive maneuvers (ie: speeding up, crossing the street, making an abrupt turn I normally wouldn’t make) and you are still following me, then yep. That’s assault in my book.

Edit: I should clarify that I must also feel threatened by you. Do you look like Miley Cyrus or do you look like a fat Danny Trejo? Zimmerman has slimmed down from his mug shot pic from 5 years ago but he’s still a big guy and should know what kind of effect he has when stalking a kid.

Living in the city this happens all the time and its part of your urban survival skills. As a 6’2” guy I am well aware of this so if I get off the bus and I’m walking home and there’s someone, especially if it’s a female, who is ahead of me and on the same path I will purposely do my own evasive maneuvers (ie: cross the street or slow down and wait at an intersection) so that it doesn’t come off like I’m following them.

. But yeah, he know more about the law than anyone here. Still, it's nice to see the internet's there to tell him he's wrong about the subject he's built his career around.

Don’t take it personally or anything. The internet doesn’t discriminate, it’s always here to tell everyone no matter what their background or education is, that they are wrong.

Edited by Mike Tattoo, 30 March 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I think Todd has a point here...it's not a crime to follow someone I think, even if the people at 911 told him it would be better not to. If there is a crime, it needs to be proven.

The problem is inadequate laws, and inexperienced, untrained, unhinged people walking around with guns.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

First off, he didn't pull it on the boy out of the blue. He pulled it AFTER a struggle ensued, a struggle started by Martin (until proved otherwise)

I never said he did pullt he gun out of the blue. I said his actions lead to a violent encounter, in which he pulled a gun. Whether Martin assaulted him or not is as yet unknown. But we do know that Zimmerman followed Martin after the 911 operator told him not to, and eventually he shot Martin.

Second, I'm not so sure I believe that merely following him is "creating the situation".

It is when you've reported the situation to 911, been told to back off, and then refuse to do so.

In fact, part of the current story is that Zimmerman followed Martin, then lost him, was walking back to his car when Martin approached him.

And if he hadn't followed Martin after the 911 operator told him to back off, no confrontation would have happened.

Even still, just following someone does not make you responsible for the whole of the event. What if some woman followed a man around for a while, giving him looks, then the man turns around and tries to rape her, is the women responsibile for creating the situation? No, of course not. Just because Zimmerman followed Martin does not excuse that, UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE, Martin initiated the physical confrontation.

Because we take the word of the man who killed him at face value? Zimmerman's story is instanatly suspect.

But here's the thing. Even if Martin did attack Zimmerman first, the whole trail of events is still his direct responsibility because he choose to ignore the instructions of the 911 operator. If he had backed off and let the police do their job, then Martin, a man innocent of any crime would still be alive.

For someone who trumpets personal responsibility as all-important Todd, you sure seem willing to ignore someone being irresponsible when you want to.

[Jim Ohara]

I think Todd has a point here...it's not a crime to follow someone I think, even if the people at 911 told him it would be better not to. If there is a crime, it needs to be proven.

He doesn't have a point. The killer was literally found with a smoking gun in his hand. The issue is he's trying to use the Stand-your-Ground law as a justification for the shooting. It's unclear how that law should be applied in this case because it's a stupid law written by small minded idiots.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Walking into a bank isn't a crime. Walking into a bank and then robbing it is.

[Johnny Henning]

That is the crux of the civil rights case, too. The presumption of innocence - and all sorts of rights people should expect to exercise - also, naturally, applies to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman hasn't really expressed any specific reason Trayvon appeared suspicious - it seems solely that he was a black kid in a hooded sweatshirt.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law isn't significantly different than other states except in two major ways. First, it eliminates the duty to retreat. For example, here is the New York statute on it:

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
© He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

In the similar Florida statute:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

And second, it allows use of deadly force to prevent crimes that are not necessarily lethal or in self-defence:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

So, if you see someone breaking into a house, you might get away with shooting them even if they weren't attacking you. Even if it turns out they lived there and forgot their key...

[Arjan Dirkse]

He doesn't have a point. The killer was literally found with a smoking gun in his hand. The issue is he's trying to use the Stand-your-Ground law as a justification for the shooting. It's unclear how that law should be applied in this case because it's a stupid law written by small minded idiots.

Of course I agree with that, it is a stupid law, but that law is still a law, at his moment in time, so if a suspect tries to use it to defend his actions you have to be able to demonstrate why it's not applicable in this case. I don't think that's going to be easy.

That is the crux of the civil rights case, too. The presumption of innocence - and all sorts of rights people should expect to exercise - also, naturally, applies to Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman hasn't really expressed any specific reason Trayvon appeared suspicious - it seems solely that he was a black kid in a hooded sweatshirt.

True, but is it a crime to have a feeling that someone is suspicious? Even if it is for a racist, or insane reason?

Again, this is simply the problem of unqualified people walking around with guns.