George Zimmerman trial

[das_nut]

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

Seriously?

So if someone attacks you, and you fight back, you can be prosecuted for assaulting the other person?

That sounds wrong.

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?

SYG is about the right not to run. Normally, you have to show you're unable to flee your attacker before you can defend yourself. (And in all cases of self-defense, you must show that you only responded with reasonable force.) SYG varies from state to state, but usually it says you don't have to flee if you have a legal right to be there and aren't engaged in a crime. A law sometimes confused with it is the "Castle Doctrine", which says you don't have to flee if you're in your own home.

George claims (and witnesses support) that he was underneath Trayvon during the fight. So SYG doesn't apply - he couldn't flee.

 

[Mischief]

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.

Exactly. IF GZ's story is true, that Trayvon attacked him and he was the one on the bottom, the nature and extent of his injuries still don't justify the use of deadly force.

 

[beancounter]

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.

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"?

Seriously?

So if someone attacks you, and you fight back, you can be prosecuted for assaulting the other person?

That sounds wrong.

I never said it was a crime. My whole argument is about TM's justification for his actions.

His father is the one with the influence. It's possible that they were doing his father a favor. Do you have a source documenting GZ's criticisms?

Yea, I was a aware of number 3, but not the rest.

http://www.efnappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/e.f._nappens_nh_deadly_force_basics.pdf

Here's an exception in NH. If you start it, you can't justify deadly force.
"You cannot use deadly force if you have provoked the use of force against
you in the same encounter."

So in NH, GZ may have had a harder time being acquitted.

 

[beancounter]

Ah, very clever!

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

 

[das_nut]

Exactly. IF GZ's story is true, that Trayvon attacked him and he was the one on the bottom, the nature and extent of his injuries still don't justify the use of deadly force.

Didn't a doctor testify that it was broken?

Also, if Zimmerman was having his head bashed against the concrete sidewalk, how many times does that have to happen before he can be in fear for his life?

I never said it was a crime.

Wouldn't it be battery then, unless specifically exempt?

This is foolish to argue over, lets just look at New Hampshire's statute:

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. [...and this goes on for awhile]

 

[beancounter]

Didn't a doctor testify that it was broken?

Also, if Zimmerman was having his head bashed against the concrete sidewalk, how many times does that have to happen before he can be in fear for his life?



Wouldn't it be battery then, unless specifically exempt?

This is foolish to argue over, lets just look at New Hampshire's statute:

What about the exception I noted. "If you provoke, you can't justify deadly force"

 

[nigel1]

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.

Perjury is a crime. Even in Florida. Getting away with something for committing perjury doesn't make you less of a criminal, it just gets you off the hook.

 

[Mischief]

Didn't a doctor testify that it was broken?

Also, if Zimmerman was having his head bashed against the concrete sidewalk, how many times does that have to happen before he can be in fear for his life?

Based on your argument and the nature and extent of GZ's injuries, pretty much any schoolyard fight would justify shooting your opponent in the heart.

I guess that's one way of controlling population size.

 

[das_nut]

Based on your argument and the nature and extent of GZ's injuries, pretty much any schoolyard fight would justify shooting your opponent in the heart.

Do most school yard fights involve bashing someone's head against the concrete?

 

[das_nut]

What about the exception I noted. "If you provoke, you can't justify deadly force"

Is following someone provocation to assault?

I suppose in New Hampshire, if you see someone verbally abusing their kid or partner, you better not walk up to them and ask them to stop it. You might provoke an argument.

Really, this all boils down to acting like civilized people.

I followed someone once. Actually I tracked them down using information I wouldn't normally have access to. This was late in the evening. A neighbor let me into the apartment building. I actually went to their door and rang it. And I'm a big tall guy.

Luckily since neither one of us were idiots, she asked me what I wanted and I handed her back her wallet, which I had just found a few blocks away, laying on the sidewalk.

 

[Freesia]

Is following someone provocation to assault?

I suppose in New Hampshire, if you see someone verbally abusing their kid or partner, you better not walk up to them and ask them to stop it. You might provoke an argument.

Really, this all boils down to acting like civilized people.

I followed someone once. Actually I tracked them down using information I wouldn't normally have access to. This was late in the evening. A neighbor let me into the apartment building. I actually went to their door and rang it. And I'm a big tall guy.

Luckily since neither one of us were idiots, she asked me what I wanted and I handed her back her wallet, which I had just found a few blocks away, laying on the sidewalk.

Not the same thing. You werent following her in a truck, and then you didnt get out of the truck and start pursuing her on foot. If you did so you would have been pepper sprayed in the face (if she had some). When you are walking at night, you dont want to be approached by strangers who are following you, it is a very vulnerable situation to be in.

 

[cornsail]

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.

If you waited until deadly force was used against you you'd be dead. Self defense isn't about retaliating for injuries, it's about preventing imminent further injuries or death. I think in some states you have to reasonably fear/expect deadly force in order to use deadly force of your own (as opposed to Florida and various other states where you can also use deadly force when you reasonably fear/expect serious injuries and not just death). I could be wrong. But this wouldn't be judged simply by evaluating how serious one's already sustained injuries were.

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.

I don't think it's clear that GZ followed TM in his vehicle. By GZ's account he pulled over before calling the non-emergency number and then briefly followed TM on foot to maintain sight of him. It's certainly possible that he was following him in his car beforehand, but I don't know if there's any evidence of that.

I don't doubt that being followed feels threatening. I don't believe I've said anything to suggest otherwise.

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.

It's not speculation and assumption, I'm basing that on the evidence from the trial. I didn't pull it out of thin air. Of course my interpretation is open to dispute and I'm willing to clarify what I'm basing it on and listen to arguments to the contrary.

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.

I find this characterization really unfair and inaccurate. Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding.

I don't by any means believe every detail that GZ claims. I don't remember posting anything indicating that I believe GZ about everything or even that I believe him about anything in particular. Can you provide me with a quote where I said something that lead you to this conclusion?

If someone says something like "GZ shouldn't have approached TM" and I respond by saying something like "By GZ's account he didn't approach TM", my point is not that what GZ said must be true, it's to point out that someone is stating something as fact when it's actually disputed or simply unclear.

As for the claim that I completely disregard what any normal person would have done, I don't think that is a fair characterization of any of my posts either. Please give me an example/clarification?

I was responding to das-nut, not you.

My mistake.

Exactly. IF GZ's story is true, that Trayvon attacked him and he was the one on the bottom, the nature and extent of his injuries still don't justify the use of deadly force.

Based on your argument and the nature and extent of GZ's injuries, pretty much any schoolyard fight would justify shooting your opponent in the heart.

I'm almost in agreement with you here. This is the one anti GZ argument that I actually consider to be pretty strong, at least morally if not legally. I would phrase it a bit differently though, because self defense is not about retaliation, it is about preventing imminent future harm.

I don't think TM intended to kill or permanently injure GZ and I don't think GZ would have died if he hadn't shot TM. I don't know enough about head injuries really assess the risk of something serious like brain damage or death in this situation, though, admittedly.

One counter argument to this is the recording of the 911 call with the screams for help in the background. If that was GZ screaming (which I consider very likely based on the available evidence) then he did sound very scared and desperate. And it went on for 40+ seconds, which is a relatively long time given the circumstances.

The other counter-argument would be that the head is a dangerous place to take punishment and just because an injury to the head looks superficial externally, that doesn't rule out internal damage. Again, I don't know enough about head injuries to have a fixed view on this. I know it's dangerous, but I don't know how dangerous, specifically.

 

[Mischief]

Do most school yard fights involve bashing someone's head against the concrete?

If your head is "bashed against concrete", you're going to have bigger injuries than a small scrape on the head. I still have a crack in my skull from simply falling (not from a height) on a concrete floor four decades ago. At the time of my injury I had a big swelling about five inches in diameter.

Jeesh, I regularly had more significant injuries from playing on the playground than GZ had. I would think that anyone who has played actively, or who has played sports, has sustained much more significant injuries on a regular basis without giving it a second thought.

 

[Mischief]

If you waited until deadly force was used against you you'd be dead. Self defense isn't about retaliating for injuries, it's about preventing imminent further injuries or death.

To this extent we agree.

However, I disagree that any unarmed scuffle reasonably gives rise to anticipation that one is in danger of being killed. If one person is considerably bigger and stronger than the other, the smaller, weaker person could reasonably be in fear of his/her life. The same thing if one person is considerably more skilled in hand to hand combat.

That's where the extent of GZ's injuries is significant. GZ wasn't overmatched in terms of physical size and strength, and there's nothing about those very minor injuries that would support that TM had some significant advantage in terms of skill, nor that GZ had a reasonable anticipation of imminent death at the hands of TM.

This is not a situation where someone is attacked by an intruder, or someone unexpectedly jumps out at someone in the dark, where the victim would have every reason to believe that the other has evil intent. This was a situation where GZ was following someone in the dark, a situation where a reasonable person could anticipate that the person he is following might well assume evil intent on the stalker's part and take proactive steps to prevent an attack on himself.

 

[das_nut]

If your head is "bashed against concrete", you're going to have bigger injuries than a small scrape on the head. I still have a crack in my skull from simply falling (not from a height) on a concrete floor four decades ago. At the time of my injury I had a big swelling about five inches in diameter.

"Simply falling" is understating the risk. If you're 6 feet tall, your head hits the ground at about 13.4 mph. It's enough to kill someone. In fact, in my state, if you punch someone and they fall and they suffer a fatal head injury, you are likely to be charged with manslaughter or murder.

Jeesh, I regularly had more significant injuries from playing on the playground than GZ had. I would think that anyone who has played actively, or who has played sports, has sustained much more significant injuries on a regular basis without giving it a second thought.

I'm not doubting that some people have broken their nose without giving it a second thought. But to say it's the normal response in people is unlikely.

But tell me again - how many times does your head have to be slammed against concrete before you need to be worried about permanent injury or death? One time? Two times? Ten times? A hundred times?

 

[das_nut]

Not the same thing. You werent following her in a truck, and then you didnt get out of the truck and start pursuing her on foot.

I was in a secured building, knocking on her door, late at night.

Not the same thing but still odd behavior.

 

[Mischief]

"Simply falling" is understating the risk. If you're 6 feet tall, your head hits the ground at about 13.4 mph. It's enough to kill someone. In fact, in my state, if you punch someone and they fall and they suffer a fatal head injury, you are likely to be charged with manslaughter or murder.

Thanks for making my point for me again. Falling can indeed kill someone if your head strikes a concrete floor as part of that fall. In my case, it resulted in considerably greater injury than GZ sustained. All that pretty much gives the lie to his contention that TM repeatedly "slammed" his head against concrete.

I'm not doubting that some people have broken their nose without giving it a second thought. But to say it's the normal response in people is unlikely.

The point I'm making is that a reasonable response to someone breaking your nose is NOT to shoot them in the heart. I'd say that was an over reaction.

But tell me again - how many times does your head have to be slammed against concrete before you need to be worried about permanent injury or death? One time? Two times? Ten times? A hundred times?

I think you've quite successfully helped to establish that TM did not "slam" GZ's head into concrete.

 

[das_nut]

]The point I'm making is that a reasonable response to someone breaking your nose is NOT to shoot them in the heart. I'd say that was an over reaction.

But it wasn't just simply breaking his nose. It was breaking his nose, then being on top of him and repeatingly hitting him (according to a witness). Those are slightly different circumstances.

I think you've quite successfully helped to establish that TM did not "slam" GZ's head into concrete.

Here, let me continue - you are, by your own logic, lying about your fall onto concrete. See, I also fell on concrete. I broke several bones and needed surgery. You claim to have fallen onto concrete but your only injuries was a crack on your skull and some swelling. Since your injuries are not consistent with mine, you must have lied.

Now I don't believe that. And I doubt you are lying. But I do understand that people can be injured in different ways from similar events.

 

[Mischief]

But it wasn't just simply breaking his nose. It was breaking his nose, then being on top of him and repeatingly hitting him (according to a witness). Those are slightly different circumstances.

And again, even if it happened that way, I don't think that justifies shooting someone.

Here, let me continue - you are, by your own logic, lying about your fall onto concrete. See, I also fell on concrete. I broke several bones and needed surgery. You claim to have fallen onto concrete but your only injuries was a crack on your skull and some swelling. Since your injuries are not consistent with mine, you must have lied.

Now I don't believe that. And I doubt you are lying. But I do understand that people can be injured in different ways from similar events.

Sure, people can be injured in different ways from similar events. The fact remains that the injuries to the back of GZ's head were minor, which doesn't exactly correspond to having one's head "slammed" into concrete (with all that word conveys about great force being used), much less reasonably believing that he was in imminent danger of death.

If this had been a schoolyard fight, would you really argue that the one kid was justified in shooting the other kid dead, based on the nature and extent of the injuries sustained?

 

[Spang]

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

Right, I linked to it in an earlier post.