George Zimmerman shot

[Skeptic Tank]

Actually it is terrorism. The gain does not have to be political. It becomes a form of terrorism the very moment when he tells her to not tell anyone or else.
(Just in case anyone is wondering, Ziggurat is the one arguing for vigilantism against terrorists, not me.)

This strikes me as the classic attempt to establish uber-SJW cred by broadcasting that you don't just take harm done to women seriously, you take it as seriously as is imaginable for a human mind to do.

It gets a bit silly though, when people talk about rape being worse than murder, there being a "war on women", society "truly hating women" as the Aussie reporter on Huffington said to the soon to be discredited Sybrina Rubin-Erdley based on her soon to be discredited UVA story... etc.

And now here you are, claiming that a 6 year old inappropriately touching a 4 year old is "terrorism."

Presumably your narrative is that he was using fear to keep the situation going and to keep her quiet... but this assumes a lot. It assumes that these events happened at all. It assumes that she was in fear of him during these years, rather than just in retrospect or just toward the very end of that span...

And even if it's true that she was entirely grossed out by it, not participatory at any time during those 10 years, afraid of it happening for that entire time rather than it perhaps starting as a mutual stupidity thing which later she felt was wrong but he didn't... even if it is the pure victim-villain dynamic you want it to be, it still seems really, really silly to refer to it as "terrorism" and you have to be aware of that.

Throughout history, and still in many places and cultures and families, this sort of stuff going on between cousins is mind-bendingly common. I'm lucky enough to live in a very well-adjusted, normal family where such things never took place (that I know of) but heck, most marriages throughout history have been between cousins from what I understand. Many cultures still engage in that sort of thing.

I agree that if her narrative is true, Zimmerman was the more active party in making these encounters happen. Then again, males do tend to be the more active party pushing things along. How clearly did she indicate she wanted no part in this stuff, and when? Was she ever indicating interest in it along the way, and then changed her tune later? Etc.

I'm just not sure how you get "rape" out of what she describes, and I'm also not sure how you get this clear cut Zimmerman = monster, cousin = saintly victim narrative out of it either.

I think the more obvious narrative, if her story is true, is that they were both engaging in weird, gross behavior and she realized that fact earlier than he did, and put an end to it before it ever reached the level of intercourse.

I will say this though, if it's true that he has her name tattooed on his arm, that's weird and he's creepy for it. At least in my opinion.

But "terrorism"? C'mon.

Edited by Agatha: 

Excised portion more suited to Trayvon Martin thread (this post copied there)

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually it is terrorism. The gain does not have to be political. It becomes a form of terrorism the very moment when he tells her to not tell anyone or else.

No. Your attempt to redefine the word to fit your agenda is not valid.

(Just in case anyone is wondering, Ziggurat is the one arguing for vigilantism against terrorists, not me.)

Except that I'm not. Killing someone in direct defense of someone else is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is extra-judicial punishment. But shooting someone in direct defense of others is not punishment. It is merely defense.

 

[Locknar]

Before it gets out of hand, please ensure your posts are on topic for this thread....this is about George Zimmerman being shot (at). Discussion about Zimmerman/Martin belongs elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[BenBurch]

I can't see how Apperson proves Zimmerman brandished his firearm.

I think there's a good chance Apperson will end up in hot water over this, but whether he does or not... it is VERY difficult to see how Zimmerman could possibly end up in any trouble out of this.

No reason he has to prove that I can see. His statement combined with the guns recovered from Z are all he needs to have a SYG case.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why does Apperson have to address that question?

Maybe Zimmerman just flashed it or waved it at Apperson with no real intention of using it. Either way, I'm not aware of any self-defense law that requires the person invoking it to have received return fire to establish they were appropriately threatened.

Apperson has to make a plausible argument that he was in imminent fear for his life. The fact that GZ never fired his gun, even after Apperson fired at him, detracts from the plausibility of that argument. For example, if GZ had been brandishing his gun at the time Apperson fired, then the gun would have been in his hand, and it seems natural to squeeze off a few shots while trying to get out of the way. At the very least to show that the gun was loaded or to make a big noise to cause the attacker to pause. If GZ couldn't do this because the gun was out of reach at the time Apperson started firing, then it means that even if he had brandished the gun, he was no longer brandishing it at the time Apperson fired, and Apperson's case weakens substantially.

Another issue is that at the time Apperson fired he was apparently firing from his driver's side window into the passenger side of GZ's car with the GZ's passenger side window closed. At that time, if GZ was brandishing his gun, Apperson would have had to believe that GZ was ready to fire through his closed passenger side window from the driver's side. I don't know. I'm not very experienced with guns, but that just doesn't seem like a credible threat. I think it would require GZ rolling down the passenger side window to make it credible.

 

[sunmaster14]

No reason he has to prove that I can see. His statement combined with the guns recovered from Z are all he needs to have a SYG case.

In Florida, he doesn't have to prove that GZ was threatening him, but he does have to make a plausible case. I don't think it's enough simply to claim correctly that GZ had a gun in his car. There are specific circumstances here which could either corroborate Apperson's story or undermine it. His story has to be reasonably consistent with all of the physical evidence. Just as GZ's was in his case.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you think there's much chance at all of Zimmerman facing consequences from this incident?

Unless there's an aspect to this incident we haven't heard yet, I'm not sure why that would even be a question.

 

[C_Felix]

I just looked for more/new reports, didn't find any.
(Which means about 5 posters will find some)

Apperson had a run in with GZ before.
According to Apperson, Zimmerman said "Do you know who I am?" before saying, "I'll (expletive) kill you."
GZ waits for Apperson at Apperson's work.
(Fast forward)
Apperson and GZ meet up.
According to Apperson, GZ flashes a gun at him.
Apperson shoots at GZ


Pretty much what we know and/or suspect?

 

[johnny karate]

Apperson has to make a plausible argument that he was in imminent fear for his life. The fact that GZ never fired his gun, even after Apperson fired at him, detracts from the plausibility of that argument.

I haven't seen you present a plausible argument that it does.

For example, if GZ had been brandishing his gun at the time Apperson fired, then the gun would have been in his hand, and it seems natural to squeeze off a few shots while trying to get out of the way. At the very least to show that the gun was loaded or to make a big noise to cause the attacker to pause. If GZ couldn't do this because the gun was out of reach at the time Apperson started firing, then it means that even if he had brandished the gun, he was no longer brandishing it at the time Apperson fired, and Apperson's case weakens substantially.

Apperson doesn't have to make a case. He only has to claim he was imminent fear for his life, and present a story that comports with the facts. He is not nor ever will be obligated to account for Zimmerman's actions.

Zimmerman had a gun. Apperson claims Zimmerman threatened him with it. Anything else regarding that particular aspect of the incident would come down to Zimmerman's word against Apperson's.

Another issue is that at the time Apperson fired he was apparently firing from his driver's side window into the passenger side of GZ's car with the GZ's passenger side window closed. At that time, if GZ was brandishing his gun, Apperson would have had to believe that GZ was ready to fire through his closed passenger side window from the driver's side. I don't know. I'm not very experienced with guns, but that just doesn't seem like a credible threat. I think it would require GZ rolling down the passenger side window to make it credible.

Electric car windows can be rolled up and down in a matter of seconds. And as this incident clearly demonstrates, a pane of glass does not eliminate the threat of a gun.

 

[sunmaster14]

I haven't seen you present a plausible argument that it does.

Don't make me work through a Bayesian analysis. Out of all of the scenarios where GZ threatens Apperson with a gun, a significant fraction will involve GZ firing that gun. Those have been excluded by the physical evidence. Thus the number of plausible scenarios which remain have been diminished.

<snip>

Electric car windows can be rolled up and down in a matter of seconds.

Yes, but in those seconds, the threat to Apperson, as reasonably perceived by him, goes away too. If a guy opens his window, brandishes a weapon, and then proceeds to close his window, I think the imminent threat disappears. Of course, it's possible that Apperson has slow reflexes and started a process that couldn't be stopped on a dime.

And as this incident clearly demonstrates, a pane of glass does not eliminate the threat of a gun.

Of course not, but why would GZ want to shoot out his own window? Not only does it create a huge mess and cost a lot of money to repair the window, but it interferes with the trajectory of the bullet. It also creates physical evidence that GZ fired his gun from within his car. I think it's highly unlikely that somebody would fire through his own car window.

 

[Rare Truth]

I haven't seen you present a plausible argument that it does.



Apperson doesn't have to make a case. He only has to claim he was imminent fear for his life, and present a story that comports with the facts. He is not nor ever will be obligated to account for Zimmerman's actions.

Zimmerman had a gun. Apperson claims Zimmerman threatened him with it. Anything else regarding that particular aspect of the incident would come down to Zimmerman's word against Apperson's.



Electric car windows can be rolled up and down in a matter of seconds. And as this incident clearly demonstrates, a pane of glass does not eliminate the threat of a gun.

Well said (and hello again jk

A little reminder, from a few years ago:

"• Those who invoke “stand your ground” to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.
…
• People often go free under “stand your ground” in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended.

One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free."

And:

"The SYG law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases:

• Did the defendant have the right to be there?
• Was he engaged in a lawful activity?
• Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

 

[casebro]

IIRC, GZ made a u-turn to evade, and Apperson followed, and opened fire?

Sounds like GZ did the right thing for once. And Apperson was in the wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

Don't make me work through a Bayesian analysis. Out of all of the scenarios where GZ threatens Apperson with a gun, a significant fraction will involve GZ firing that gun. Those have been excluded by the physical evidence. Thus the number of plausible scenarios which remain have been diminished.

If Apperson is charged and tried, "plausible scenario" won't be the standard. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" will be.

Yes, but in those seconds, the threat to Apperson, as reasonably perceived by him, goes away too. If a guy opens his window, brandishes a weapon, and then proceeds to close his window, I think the imminent threat disappears. Of course, it's possible that Apperson has slow reflexes and started a process that couldn't be stopped on a dime.

Zimmerman flashes his gun.

Apperson sees it, panics, and reaches for his.

Zimmerman rolls up his window.

Apperson turns and fires.

Seems fairly straightforward.

Of course not, but why would GZ want to shoot out his own window? Not only does it create a huge mess and cost a lot of money to repair the window, but it interferes with the trajectory of the bullet. It also creates physical evidence that GZ fired his gun from within his car. I think it's highly unlikely that somebody would fire through his own car window.

And you think it's reasonable to expect someone to process all that moments after seeing a known killer threaten them with a gun?

 

[johnny karate]

IIRC, GZ made a u-turn to evade, and Apperson followed, and opened fire?

Sounds like GZ did the right thing for once. And Apperson was in the wrong.

That's a claim made by Zimmerman that has yet to be corroborated.

 

[johnny karate]

I just looked for more/new reports, didn't find any.
(Which means about 5 posters will find some)

Apperson had a run in with GZ before.
According to Apperson, Zimmerman said "Do you know who I am?" before saying, "I'll (expletive) kill you."
GZ waits for Apperson at Apperson's work.
(Fast forward)
Apperson and GZ meet up.
According to Apperson, GZ flashes a gun at him.
Apperson shoots at GZ


Pretty much what we know and/or suspect?

Pretty much. Although, regarding Zimmerman waiting for Apperson at his place of employment, police merely found Zimmerman in the area and he claims he was there for a doctor's appointment.

 

[sunmaster14]

If Apperson is charged and tried, "plausible scenario" won't be the standard. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" will be.

I think that's the same standard.

Zimmerman flashes his gun.

Apperson sees it, panics, and reaches for his.

Zimmerman rolls up his window.

Apperson turns and fires.

Seems fairly straightforward.

It's possible. We'll have to see what Apperson actually told police though.

And you think it's reasonable to expect someone to process all that moments after seeing a known killer threaten them with a gun?

It's instinct actually. I'm not sure I would duck if somebody pointed a gun at mean through a closed car window (his window). Depending upon the angle of the sun and the window (as well as the tint of the window), it might not even be that easy to see the gun or see where it is pointing.

 

[The Big Dog]

I can't see how Zimmerman proves he didn't.

Stalemate. They both walk.

Burden of proof does not work that way.

Zimmerman does not have to prove anything, let alone a negative.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

It's instinct actually. I'm not sure I would duck if somebody pointed a gun at mean through a closed car window (his window). Depending upon the angle of the sun and the window (as well as the tint of the window), it might not even be that easy to see the gun or see where it is pointing.

If the windows were so obscured that it would be difficult or impossible to tell that a gun was being waved around then how could anyone tell it was George?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Burden of proof does not work that way.

Zimmerman does not have to prove anything, let alone a negative.

Correct, only the prosecutor has to prove that the law was violated. So they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Apperson was not afraid for his life.

Most likely scenario is that no charges get filed here.

 

[The Big Dog]

Correct, only the prosecutor has to prove that the law was violated. So they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Apperson was not afraid for his life.

Most likely scenario is that no charges get filed here.

Again, that is not correct.

Self defense is an affirmative defense under Florida law and the burden therefore rests on the gunman.