George Zimmerman trial

[Dedalus]

I once woke up with a 90-pound dog on top of me who had decided to make me his bed. Okay, not exactly the same situation as this but I couldn't roll the dog off and he wasn't even beating my head into the ground when it happened. I was pinned even though I outweigh the dog.

I imagine there are several 90-pound (or under) animals that would be difficult to remove from your person if they were so inclined to attack you. That is not an apples to apples comparison.

Besides, if someone is beating your head into the ground, you probably aren't thinking clearly and your first thought isn't going to be "Gee, I need to roll over and get this guy off me." Your first thought will be stop him before he kills me.

I don't see a difference in those two thoughts. You are going to be thinking only of self-preservation. It may be rolling over. It may be to reach the other's hands /arms in an effort to stop the attack or deflect the blows. Your defensive movement will be an effort to interrupt what is happening; to shield yourself. It would definitely be bent on minimizing the damage being done.

It doesn't stand to reason that in a prone position one could be taking the time to fish out a gun holstered to their waist (and laying on it, none-the less) while enduring severe blows to the head. Your arms are going to instinctively reach up to protect your head.

 

[cornsail]

Is there a person in this thread in the "Zimmerman should have been found not-guilty" camp that is 100% pro-Zimmerman?

I'm not aware of one.

I think what most people who support the verdict in this thread is arguing that the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. There's some things about Zimmerman's story that is questionable. There's things I wish I knew more about that I never could find in the news and wasn't focused on in the trial.

But there's a world of difference between admitting I don't know, and saying "well, he must be guilty".

Based on what I've seen from the trial I am pretty confident that GZ did not commit a crime (legally speaking) when he pulled the trigger. That is, I think he was A) being assaulted and B) at least feared significant bodily harm. I'm obviously not 100% sure, but I'm beyond the mere "there is reasonable doubt" or "there is not enough evidence" level of confidence. My opinion is not based on "believing everything GZ says", it's based on the physical evidence, recorded audio and eyewitness testimonies. We can ignore everything GZ said and the evidence still seems to point in the same direction WRT to whether or not justified self defense (again, legally speaking) took place or not.

Ethically speaking, I think a case can be made for "he should have just lain there and taken the beating". Because wouldn't you rather get your *** kicked than kill someone? Then again I don't know enough about head injuries to know what sort of risk continued blows to the front and back of the head would pose. Also I could imagine a situation in which you've been yelling for help for almost a minute and the person on top of you still hasn't ceased being pretty frightening. The cries for help did sound pretty genuinely scared/desperate. So I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence here, when you remove legality from the picture.

 

[Dedalus]

For the sake of this endless debate let's suppose this scenario is what took place:

TM notices he is being followed by GZ. Possibly a verbal conflict ensues - with GZ playing his heroic persona out to save the day - which irritates TM who shrugs it off IE: 'crazy cracker.'

GZ persists in pursuing TM and hopes the cops get there soon. This in turn, leads to TM deciding he's had enough of this harrassment - he is simply on his way home. He turns around, bashes GZ in the face/nose. When GZ hits the ground, TM jumps on top of him, slams his head into the sidewalk a few times.

We know GZ can't fight - his MMA trainer testified to that, so there was probably not much retaliation from GZ. TM - satisfied that he has convinced GZ that following someone to the point of harrassment is not a good idea, continues on his way home. GZ - humilated, beaten up and angry - draws his pistol, rushes TM (who is now in the grass, yards away from the sidewalk) and puts a bullet in his heart.

Is it still self defense?

 

[das_nut]

For the sake of this endless debate let's suppose this scenario is what took place:

TM notices he is being followed by GZ. Possibly a verbal conflict ensues - with GZ playing his heroic persona out to save the day - which irritates TM who shrugs it off IE: 'crazy cracker.'

GZ persists in pursuing TM and hopes the cops get there soon. This in turn, leads to TM deciding he's had enough of this harrassment - he is simply on his way home. He turns around, bashes GZ in the face/nose. When GZ hits the ground, TM jumps on top of him, slams his head into the sidewalk a few times.

We know GZ can't fight - his MMA trainer testified to that, so there was probably not much retaliation from GZ. TM - satisfied that he has convinced GZ that following someone to the point of harrassment is not a good idea, continues on his way home. GZ - humilated, beaten up and angry - draws his pistol, rushes TM (who is now in the grass, yards away from the sidewalk) and puts a bullet in his heart.

Is it still self defense?

That would not be justifiable homicide.

But the bullet wound and gunshot residue seems to rule out that scenario. However, Zimmerman could have run over to Martin, grabbed his shirt, Martin tried to get away, and Zimmerman shot him. That would explain why the shirt was away from the skin when he was shot. But it would be an odd situation for Zimmerman, deciding to shoot Martin, to run over to him and grab him by the shirt before shooting him.

But maybe Zimmerman decided to hold Martin until the police arrived. When Martin struggled, Zimmerman pulled out the gun, intending to hold him at gunpoint and the gun unintentionally went off. I think that would also be odd (anyone with a concealed carry class would probably be told never to draw your gun unless you're willing to use it) but it would more closely fit the evidence and still make Zimmerman at fault. But even that has a hole - why was someone be screaming the entire time until the gunshot was heard?

I think the best scenario that fits the evidence but finds Zimmerman at least partially responsible is if he starts the fight. He could confront Martin, then grab Martin as Martin tries to leave. Martin then would be acting in justifiable self-defense by slugging Zimmerman. Zimmerman would be known as the unlawful aggressor, and Martin would be acting in self-defense. The fight ends up being problematic though. If Martin does start hitting Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk, it could be argued that Martin has escalated the situation by using deadly force (the sidewalk as a weapon), and thus Martin would turn into an unlawful aggressor. But Zimmerman, in starting the fight, couldn't claim self-defense, as far as I know. So, in short, both would be guilty of trying to use deadly force against each other.

 

[Wolfie]

I imagine there are several 90-pound (or under) animals that would be difficult to remove from your person if they were so inclined to attack you. That is not an apples to apples comparison.

So one should be able to throw off a lighter body if it's human but not if it's a canine?

 

[cornsail]

For the sake of this endless debate let's suppose this scenario is what took place:

TM notices he is being followed by GZ. Possibly a verbal conflict ensues - with GZ playing his heroic persona out to save the day - which irritates TM who shrugs it off IE: 'crazy cracker.'

GZ persists in pursuing TM and hopes the cops get there soon. This in turn, leads to TM deciding he's had enough of this harrassment - he is simply on his way home. He turns around, bashes GZ in the face/nose. When GZ hits the ground, TM jumps on top of him, slams his head into the sidewalk a few times.

We know GZ can't fight - his MMA trainer testified to that, so there was probably not much retaliation from GZ. TM - satisfied that he has convinced GZ that following someone to the point of harrassment is not a good idea, continues on his way home. GZ - humilated, beaten up and angry - draws his pistol, rushes TM (who is now in the grass, yards away from the sidewalk) and puts a bullet in his heart.

Is it still self defense?

No.

 

[rainforests1]

There's something like 15,000 murders in the United States per year. Why did the Zimmerman case get national attention, while 99% of them don't?

 

[ledboots]

I imagine there are several 90-pound (or under) animals that would be difficult to remove from your person if they were so inclined to attack you. That is not an apples to apples comparison.



I don't see a difference in those two thoughts. You are going to be thinking only of self-preservation. It may be rolling over. It may be to reach the other's hands /arms in an effort to stop the attack or deflect the blows. Your defensive movement will be an effort to interrupt what is happening; to shield yourself. It would definitely be bent on minimizing the damage being done.

It doesn't stand to reason that in a prone position one could be taking the time to fish out a gun holstered to their waist (and laying on it, none-the less) while enduring severe blows to the head. Your arms are going to instinctively reach up to protect your head.

If I had a gun and someone was sitting on me beating me up mma style, I would do anything to get the gun. One arm over my face, the other reaching for the weapon.

 

[das_nut]

There's something like 15,000 murders in the United States per year. Why did the Zimmerman case get national attention, while 99% of them don't?

A "white" guy killing a black teen, and not having any charges filed against them is more newsworthy.

 

[Mischief]

A "white" guy killing a black teen, and not having any charges filed against them is more newsworthy.

Ah, that 'splains the Casey Anthony trial, the Arias trial, the Scott Peterson trial, the Drew Peterson trial, the ....

Oh, gee, that doesn't exactly make your point that people care more about the death of a black person than a white one. Sorry about that.

 

[Wolfie]

If I had a gun and someone was sitting on me beating me up mma style, I would do anything to get the gun. One arm over my face, the other reaching for the weapon.

Same here.

 

[das_nut]

Ah, that 'splains the Casey Anthony trial, the Arias trial, the Scott Peterson trial, the Drew Peterson trial, the ....

Oh, gee, that doesn't exactly make your point that people care more about the death of a black person than a white one. Sorry about that.

It's possible that different trials become famous for different reasons.

And it's not just that a black person was killed - black people are killed every day, and most of the time it does not make national news. It's the combination of a "white" person killing a black person and not being charged that makes it more newsworthy, especially with the circumstances of the case.

See, news doesn't exist to report what is important. News exists to sell advertising. Stories that inflame people's passions, especially those which can be spun a certain way draw people. The Trayvon Martin homicide case plugged into people's assumptions about race. Casey Anthony had a photogenic white child. Jody Arias's case had kinky sex and a jilted lover. Drew Peterson is another case of missing white woman syndrome (Caylee Anthony would be the first). Scott Peterson was a pregnant missing white woman. In fact, if you want to talk about race and victims, I'd say that the media cares more about the death of a young white attractive woman or girl than any other combination of race/age/gender.

That's not to say that every case with one of these attributes will become national news. There's an element of luck. But cases that appeal to more people will tend to get more coverage.

 

[cornsail]

The national media in the US has a weird habit of obsessing over just one or two stories at a time, that one would think would have been local news stories if anything. When it comes to celebrity trials/scandals it makes more sense--they are already famous nation-wide if not world-wide. But it is weird and disturbing to me how local events seemingly almost randomly get selected for national scrutiny. Some of these stories don't last long. Others are more dragged out. A woman teacher (or principle? I forget) who made girls lift up their skirts/dresses to confirm that they were wearing underwear at a dance at some high school. National news. A homeless guy with a good radio voice. A missing white girl (of course most missing white girls don't become national news, but most people who make national news for being missing are white girls).

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to it. But of course it's ratings driven and laziness driven. There is an assumption that people won't be interested in hearing about too many incidents at the same time and it's the incidents that will stir up controversy and emotions that get focused on. Aside from the initial drivers of a story, this also makes things super easy for the "news" because they don't actually have to do any journalism, they just have to look to see what everyone else is talking about. I think the TM homicide became famous partly because of the weirdness of a neighborhood watch person calling the cops to report someone they thought was suspicious and then winding up shooting the person. In that sense I'm guessing it's a somewhat unusual homicide. And then there's the race angle which tends to get people talking. And gun control and concealed carry. It wasn't really about SYG, but the media apparently said hell that's okay, we can just pretend it was all about SYG anyway and no one will know the difference.

There is little I hate more than a poorly informed national witch hunt. It's a personal hot button issue for me. That goes for the inaccurate and/or irrelevant nonsense spouted about both TM and GZ. This is why I get frustrated when people who haven't watched the trial are outraged by it and when people state inaccuracies or speculations as facts.

 

[beancounter]

There is little I hate more than a poorly informed national witch hunt. It's a personal hot button issue for me. That goes for the inaccurate and/or irrelevant nonsense spouted about both TM and GZ. This is why I get frustrated when people who haven't watched the trial are outraged by it and when people state inaccuracies or speculations as facts.

Within the trial the prosecution brought up the point of CZ lying about his knowdge of SYG laws in attempt to show he has a credibility issue. In the same context, I mentioned (and provided multiple sources) regarding him lying about his assets. Since the proscution was allowed to show issues with his credibility during the trial, then my point about his assets is also relevant.

 

[cornsail]

Within the trial the prosecution brought up the point of CZ lying about his knowdge of SYG laws in attempt to show he has a credibility issue. In the same context, I mentioned (and provided multiple sources) regarding him lying about his assets. Since the proscution was allowed to show issues with his credibility during the trial, then my point about his assets is also relevant.

I wasn't referencing that (or anything specific) in my post. I personally don't consider whether GZ lied at the bail hearing relevant, but I wouldn't call it nonsense.

 

[das_nut]

Speaking of things the Media does, what ever happened to Zimmerman's lawsuit against NBC for editing the phone recording to make him appear racist?

 

[Dedalus]

So one should be able to throw off a lighter body if it's human but not if it's a canine?

I think so. Not necessarily in all positions / instances. I'm just saying one may have an easier time with a human than with a canine. For instance - the canine being smaller and leaner in stature has more concentrated weight. That 90 pounds directly on your chest, with paws on each side of your head may be more difficult to get out from under as opposed to a human sitting on your chest. The human's head would be elevated above you - and being a heavy part of one's anatomy - it would be easier to disturb their balance, whereas a dog's head is going to be low - and more difficult to throw off balance and subsequently - remove from your person.

 

[Dedalus]

If I had a gun and someone was sitting on me beating me up mma style, I would do anything to get the gun. One arm over my face, the other reaching for the weapon.

I'm not disputing what you would do, but I would do anything to break free - THEN go for the gun. On your back with arms flailing and not having complete control is going to introduce the gun into a scenario where it may be taken away from you - and then most likely used against you.

 

[das_nut]

I'm not disputing what you would do, but I would do anything to break free - THEN go for the gun. On your back with arms flailing and not having complete control is going to introduce the gun into a scenario where it may be taken away from you - and then most likely used against you.

If you're in genuine fear for your life, and you believe you may be killed, would you really think "I better not grab the gun in case it's taken away from me"?

 

[Dedalus]

If you're in genuine fear for your life, and you believe you may be killed, would you really think "I better not grab the gun in case it's taken away from me"?

I don't think one 'thinks through' their options in these cases - they just react. But in imagining a scenario like this - for me personally - I'm not going for the gun unless I know with certainty that I can get to the weapon - point and shoot it. I'm not going to go for it in a close quarters struggle. I have more confidence in my ability to get out of a physical conflict than I do about being dexterous enough to draw a holstered weapon and shoot it while enduring blows to the head, laying on the ground. The bullet would have a good chance of finding me as well as my target. My goal would be to stop or interrupt the blows and get off of the ground first.