George Zimmerman trial

[cornsail]

The 2 questions I have about this is

1) Would George Zimmerman have had the same level of concern if he had seen a white 18 year old guy walking down the street?

and

2) If he felt so threatened by this guy, why did he not stay in his truck? Seems strange to go towards someone who you consider threatening, most people would try and avoid someone they thought was menacing, not get out of a safe vehicle and set after them on foot. Does not add up.

1) Nobody knows the answer to this. There is some evidence suggesting that it is unlikely GZ held any overt racial prejudice or racial hatred, but a more subtle racial bias having been at play is certainly possible.

2) I don't know that he felt threatened. I think he got out of his truck because the dispatcher was asking questions like "Which way is he going?" and GZ wanted to maintain sight of him.

Keep in mind GZ was on trial for murder, not for racially profiling and not for foolishly getting out of his vehicle. An unwise person with racial prejudices has the same rights to self defense as a wise person with no racial prejudices.

 

[Mischief]

Sorry for being so un-hip, but I don't get how the picture ties in to the caption. Is the guy in the picture some type of TV villain?

That's Dexter, the main character of a TV show by the same name. He's a serial killer who preys only on killers.

 

[das_nut]

Every 28 hours a Black person is extrajudicially killed in this country. This is a practice that has been going on in the United States for its entirety, and for several hundred years prior.

I had to dig up your quote to find what "extrajudicially" means. I thought it was referring to murders, but that would mean that "only" roughly 350 murders where the victim was black per year, which sounded low.

It looks like the study is referring to cases where a black person is killed by a police officer, security guard, or similar person. Most of the time, it was the police. (To put it in perspective, in 2011, police shot and killed 607 people.)

The study is called "Operation Ghetto Storm". The PDF is online.

 

[cornsail]

The problem is that this trial sets a precedent in the eyes of the public. Now people will be emboldened to shoot someone they don't like because they think all they have to do is claim is that they feared for their life.

I don't think it sets the precedent that that's "all they have to do". There is strong evidence that TM was on top of GZ, that GZ was receiving injuries to the front and back of his head, that GZ was screaming for help for at least 40 seconds while TM was on top of him, and so on... There is no physical evidence that GZ ever attacked TM prior to the gunshot.

If anyone is actually emboldened by thinking that they can now start murdering people and claiming that they feared for their life then I expect them to wind up in prison shortly.

I'm also betting that Florida type laws will start spreading around the country to many other states, ...and may be signed into law in your state. In which case, the trial will have a potential impact on your life.

What Flordia type laws are you talking about? Isn't self defense a valid legal defense in all states? Again, this was not a SYG case...

 

[beancounter]

You seem to be holding these two individuals to very different standards. Why is that?

Because GZ made assumptions without any reasonable evidence and initiated the pursuit. TM was minding his own business.

Furthermore, GZ has been caught in two lies.. He lied about his assets during bail, and he lied on a FOX interview. What makes you think he's telling the full truth about this incident? If I didn't know about his propensity to lie, I might have a different opinion. But the cat's out of the bag...

Also, the original judge accused him of using his knowledge of the legal system to manipulate the court.

Also, his father is a former judge and has connections with law enforcement. There may have been no impropriety, but it can give the appearance of it. But we all know people never use their connections to gain influence and advantage. And people never lie to "protect their own".

 

[beancounter]

. There is no physical evidence that GZ ever attacked TM prior to the gunshot.

What Flordia type laws are you talking about? Isn't self defense a valid legal defense in all states? Again, this was not a SYG case...

I'm not arguing that GZ didn't fear for his life.

My argument has been the TM feared for his life. Which by the standards of the case would give him justification to attack.

Laws vary greatly from state to state. For example in NH, you can only claim self defense if the incident occurs on your property.

EDIT: Isn't SYG a self-defense related law? If SYG isn't about defending yourself, then what is it about? The law gives you the right not to run, but if you're not running away from an attacker, then presumably you are defending yourself?

 

[beancounter]

Yes, hypothetically, that could have happened. So would Trayvon have been justified in using deadly force against George? If so, how about the other hypothetical - George unthinkingly gave part of his address to the 911 dispatcher before realizing that anyone nearby could hear it. Would George have been justified in attacking Trayvon, because for all George knew this unidentified suspicious guy could go to George's house for revenge?

Remember GZ was in pursuit of TM. TM had a real reason to believe his life was in danger. It may be hypothetical, but it's within reasonable parameters given the situation. Your scenario is a bit over the top

 

[Mischief]

My argument has been the TM feared for his life.

This. I would certainly be afraid for my life if I saw a vehicle following me as I walked home, especially at night, and then even more so if I saw a man getting out of that vehicle to approach me.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that.

As it turns out, Trayvon was certainly right to be afraid. He's the one who ended up dead.

 

[cornsail]

I'm not arguing that GZ didn't fear for his life.

My argument has been the TM feared for his life. Which by the standards of the case would give him justification to attack.

I disagree that the standards of the case give justification for assaulting someone for following you. Also (less importantly), by GZ's account he was no longer following TM when the encounter took place.

Laws vary greatly from state to state. For example in NH, you can only claim self defense if the incident occurs on your property.

Errr no. If you are attacked outside of your property in NH you can defend yourself. I'm pretty sure there are no states where you aren't allowed to defend yourself outside of your property.

Remember GZ was in pursuit of TM. TM had a real reason to believe his life was in danger. It may be hypothetical, but it's within reasonable parameters given the situation. Your scenario is a bit over the top

What are you referring to as "my scenario"?

It's not clear GZ was "in pursuit of TM". It's clear that GZ was, at least for a brief period of time, following TM to maintain sight of his location. Anything else is speculation. Reasonable speculation maybe, but that's still not good enough. Even if GZ approached TM rather than just following from a distance, that's still not lawful grounds to assault someone. Especially not when they're on the ground screaming for help.

 

[Freesia]

I grew up in an area which has some neighbourhoods where there have been violent attacks and have been in situations where I felt physically threatened (in seemingly safe parts of town).

Believe me, if you truly feel physically threatened, you do not get out of a car. You are safest in there. In fact you lock all the car doors and keep your distance from the person.

So sorry, I dont believe his story. It just seems like utter BS and counterintuitive to any survival instinct that somebody who felt threatened would get out of a car and go towards the person who is threatening.

And I read yesterday that GZ has had other violence and assault charges in the past.

 

[Freesia]

Also I see a double standard here. It seems unthinkable for the young man to defend himself, by breaking someones nose, but ok for GZ to defend himself by killing someone. Why is GZ the only one who is allowed to defend himself?

 

[cornsail]

As it turns out, Trayvon was certainly right to be afraid. He's the one who ended up dead.

Jim looks dangerous. I am afraid of Jim. I am going attack Jim to make sure he doesn't hurt me. Jim fought back. This proves that Jim was dangerous and I was right to attack him.

(?)

 

[Forster]

Sorry for being so un-hip, but I don't get how the picture ties in to the caption. Is the guy in the picture some type of TV villain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Morgan

 

[Mischief]

Errr no. If you are attacked outside of your property in NH you can defend yourself. I'm pretty sure there are no states where you aren't allowed to defend yourself outside of your property.



What are you referring to as "my scenario"?

It's not clear GZ was "in pursuit of TM". It's clear that GZ was, at least for a brief period of time, following TM to maintain sight of his location. Anything else is speculation. Reasonable speculation maybe, but that's still not good enough. Even if GZ approached TM rather than just following from a distance, that's still not lawful grounds to assault someone. Especially not when they're on the ground screaming for help.

In many states, you are only allowed to use deadly force if deadly force is being used against you. In other words, you're not allowed to shoot someone, much less shoot them dead, in response to the kind of injuries allegedly inflicted by TM, which were minimal, if they were even inflicted by TM.

Do you realize how slowly one has to drive in order to follow someone who is walking? Have you ever been followed by a vehicle when walking at night? I suspect not, not if you can't understand how threatening the impact of that is.

In response to the part of your post that I've bolded: Wow. Talk about speculation and assumption. Talk about having made up your mind.

Believe me, if you truly feel physically threatened, you do not get out of a car. You are safest in there. In fact you lock all the car doors and keep your distance from the person.

So sorry, I dont believe his story. It just seems like utter BS and counterintuitive to any survival instinct that somebody who felt threatened would get out of a car and go towards the person who is threatening.

This.

 

[Mischief]

Jim looks dangerous. I am afraid of Jim. I am going attack Jim to make sure he doesn't hurt me. Jim fought back. This proves that Jim was dangerous and I was right to attack him.

(?)

See my post above. It seems to me that you made up your mind to 100% believe every detail that GZ claims, and to completely disregard what any normal person, who is not actively seeking a confrontation, would have done.

 

[Mischief]

In other news, in the town where my best friend lives, people set off fireworks last night to celebrate the verdict. The consensus there is that Trayvon "got what he deserved."

Disgusting.

 

[beancounter]

What are you referring to as "my scenario"?

I was responding to das-nut, not you.

 

[das_nut]

Because GZ made assumptions without any reasonable evidence and initiated the pursuit. TM was minding his own business.

It's not a crime to call a non-emergency number when you see someone in your neighborhood you don't recognize. Nor is it a crime to follow them.

Any other factors about Trayvon Martin's behavior being suspicious is speculative - the toxicology report does not, and can not, provide evidence if Trayvon was acting weirdly at the time.

Furthermore, GZ has been caught in two lies.. He lied about his assets during bail, and he lied on a FOX interview. What makes you think he's telling the full truth about this incident? If I didn't know about his propensity to lie, I might have a different opinion. But the cat's out of the bag...

I think it's likely that George Zimmerman is not telling the whole truth and he may have continued looking for Trayvon Martin. However, that is not a crime.

For the fight itself, we have witnesses that seem to collaborate that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman's injuries suggest that he was not able to use his gun initially. I believe that means that Zimmerman did not have the gun out at the time the fight started.

We cannot prove who started the fight. George Zimmerman was heavier than Trayvon Martin. Supposedly he was in MMA-style training. But it is clear that Trayvon got the best of George. This may be indicative that Trayvon jumped George, but it doesn't prove it.

However, George doesn't have the burden of proof. The state does.

Also, his father is a former judge and has connections with law enforcement. There may have been no impropriety, but it can give the appearance of it. But we all know people never use their connections to gain influence and advantage. And people never lie to "protect their own".

If that's the case, shouldn't George Zimmerman's criticism of the police department over their handling of the beating of a homeless black man make the police more likely to prosecute him, instead of less likely? George wasn't loyal to them, he protested police actions. Shouldn't the police have been out to get him in order to protect "their own"?

 

[peacefulveglady]

I disagree. I believe the public has a right to know what's going on in the courts. Although I agree that the media should stick to the facts and tone down the fanfare.

I agree I was just replying on fear and concern....

 

[Calliegirl]

Also I see a double standard here. It seems unthinkable for the young man to defend himself, by breaking someones nose, but ok for GZ to defend himself by killing someone. Why is GZ the only one who is allowed to defend himself?

I thought I read that his nose wasn't actually broken, just bleeding a little. All of his wounds were superficial. It's funny how you hear about how hard his head was being hit against the cement, but nothing about any injuries. How come there are no reports of skull fractures or concussions? All he had a were a few tiny scratches.