Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

Point B is irrelevant when judging Zimmerman's actions. I don't care what he "genuinely believed". I may "genuinely believe" my neighbors are Satanists practicing human sacrifice. That doesn't give me justification to burn their house down.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car like he knew he was supposed to. He behaved recklessly and irresponsibly, and as a result, someone died.

You wouldn't want to stop the sacrifice? Say by breaking down the door? The police will be too late.

Zimmerman's thinking is irrelevant when judging his actions?

 

[EGarrett]

Yeah, that's what I don't get. Why did did the police think this was a "reasonable belief" of Zimmerman's?

That is another issue. The police who were so ignorant of the law that they let Zimmerman walk and still refuse to arrest him should be under heavy investigation and wondering if they will get to keep their badges. This is a murder case that has been severely effected by their negligence and misconduct.

 

[johnny karate]

Zimmerman's thinking is irrelevant when judging his actions?

Of course it is. The only thing that matters is what was happening in reality, not in Zimmerman's' mind. Or do you think anytime someone is murdered, we should consider whatever justification their murderer manufactured as a mitigating factor?

You wouldn't want to stop the sacrifice? Say by breaking down the door? The police will be too late.

And suppose I do break down the door to find a perfectly innocent family sitting down to dinner. When the police arrive, do I get to tell them I thought there was a Satanic human sacrifice taking place in order to not be arrested?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Of course it is. The only thing that matters is what was happening in reality, not in Zimmerman's' mind.

Actually, both matter.

 

[Checkmite]

Question: are there any released photos of Zimmerman that were taken after his arrest?

 

[Alt+F4]

The only thing that matters is what was happening in reality, not in Zimmerman's' mind. Or do you think anytime someone is murdered, we should consider whatever justification their murderer manufactured as a mitigating factor?

That's the problem with this law, it doesn't say that justifiable lethal force should be based on what is actually happening but rather it's ok based on what what the killer believes to be a reasonable threat.

 

[a_unique_person]

Okay.


B - It is within the realm of possibility that Zimmerman genuinely believed Martin was a suspicious person who was up to no good.

That suspicion appears to be based on his being black.

 

[Alt+F4]

Question: are there any released photos of Zimmerman that were taken after his arrest?

As far as I know, no. However, they will probably emerge. Zimmerman's lawyer said he suffered a broken nose and a cut to the back of his head. Didn't he also say he didn't seek medical attention until the next day (after realizing he's screwed)? That crap doesn't even fly on Judge Judy.

 

[EGarrett]

That's a big problem. The original writer of the law himself says it was not meant to apply to situations like this where a guy pursues another into a situation where hostilities result.

But obviously the language of the law isn't clear enough on that point, since the AG seems to think the protections of the statute apply to Zimmerman in this situation. So the law needs to be changed.

Given his comments on the matter, the drafter of the law should be up for an amendment clarifying the circumstances in which the law applies. Whether he would participate in such a push, or whether he will instead defend it from what some will doubtless call an attempt to "weaken it", remains to be seen.

Well if the Attorney-General thinks that the law means that I can pursue and start hostilities with someone who is attempting to flee from me, while holding a gun, and then kill them after a fight starts and then get away with it as long as no one saw it or can't prove a negative about what I say about the circumstances surrounding my pursuit and killing of the person...then the Attorney-General probably should lose his job. That interpretation of the law is ridiculous.

 

[crimresearch]

Got a link to that?

Posted more than once in the first thousand posts in this thread... and on the internet.

 

[Checkmite]

A photo would certainly prove whether he had a broken nose (as opposed to merely a bloodied one). Broken noses are...very conspicuous injuries.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, both matter.

No, they don't. Zimmerman doesn't get to see someone walking down the street and say "Gee, he looks suspicious" and follow him with a gun, and the rest of us just take it for granted he was justified in his actions.

He had no business following Martin, and certainly had no business doing it while armed. He should have stayed in his car as the police advised him to, and as the rules of his neighborhood watch program dictated.

That's the problem with this law, it doesn't say that justifiable lethal force should be based on what is actually happening but rather it's ok based on what what the killer believes to be a reasonable threat.

But when we take the altercation back to the point when Zimmerman recklessly and irresponsibly set things in motion, it seems a little more difficult to apply that law. Perhaps I'm wrong on that point.

 

[johnny karate]

That suspicion appears to be based on his being black.

A don't forget the hoodie. Official uniform of evil-doers everywhere.

 

[johnny karate]

A photo would certainly prove whether he had a broken nose (as opposed to merely a bloodied one). Broken noses are...very conspicuous injuries.

So would medical documents or mention in the police report. All of which have been conspicuously absent...

 

[EGarrett]

That suspicion appears to be based on his being black.

This is yet another interesting issue. From what I understand there was a hate crimes bill passed in 2009 that adds a heightened level of offense to racial/sexual-orientation or gender-based crimes. If our good friend George was truly muttering "****** coon" under his breath while "defensively" brandishing a gun and chasing down an unarmed boy who was trying to get away from him...then this may also be a hate-crime under that legislation.

Sucks to be you, Georgie Boy. But not as much as it sucks to be the child you killed.

 

[crimresearch]

This sets off my BS meter. If this is true, then I can aggressively track, pursue and harass someone into a physical confrontation, then kill them, and as long as I have some scars and claim he attacked me first...someone has to prove the negative and find evidence that the scar came from him hitting me first instead of him defending himself from me, and if they don't I can walk away scot-free.

Is that what you're claiming?

It means that if someone is a good enough liar (and no contravening evidence is found), then they have a chance of fooling a jury. Which is hardly news.

 

[crimresearch]

This is yet another interesting issue. From what I understand there was a hate crimes bill passed in 2009 that adds a heightened level of offense to racial/sexual-orientation or gender-based crimes. If our good friend George was truly muttering "****** coon" under his breath while "defensively" brandishing a gun and chasing down an unarmed boy who was trying to get away from him...then this may also be a hate-crime under that legislation.

Sucks to be you, Georgie Boy. But not as much as it sucks to be the child you killed.

No chance at all that the muffled words on that tape *alone* are going to rise to the level needed for a hate crimes enhancement.

 

[varwoche]

Well, Spike Lee didn't actually tweet it; someone else did, and he passed it on.

Is March too early for a nitpick of the year nomination?

 

[Alt+F4]

This is yet another interesting issue. From what I understand there was a hate crimes bill passed in 2009 that adds a heightened level of offense to racial/sexual-orientation or gender-based crimes. If our good friend George was truly muttering "****** coon" under his breath while "defensively" brandishing a gun and chasing down an unarmed boy who was trying to get away from him...then this may also be a hate-crime under that legislation.

Sucks to be you, Georgie Boy. But not as much as it sucks to be the child you killed.

I don't think GZ had to be muttering anything under his breath (would be hard to prove anyway) in order to make the argument that this was a hate crime. As I mentioned in my poorly worded post from last night, GZ would never have thought of me as being "suspicious" (white, female, of a "certain age"). I think the prosecution will have an easier time prosecuting this as a hate crime since the "stand your ground" law seems to be so vague, that yes, maybe in Florida you could burn down your neighbor's house because you had a "reasonable" belief that he or she was a Satan worshiper.

 

[Mumbles]

The Chief was probably just interpreting that as Zimmerman being unsure that Martin was black at the moment he was asked in the initial stages.

It's certainly not enough to call the Chief a liar and accuse him of a cover up.

If his interpretation of "he looks black" is "I don't know his race", then he's at the very least a very confused person, and should never have said anything at all to the press.

There's also the claim that Zimmerman got out of his car to check a street sign, which is also contradicted by the 911 tape, and by the location of the fight. And the 911 tape contain the only known statements that Zimmerman made.

I really don't care why the SPD keeps leaking contradictory information, or if they're running a tight operation and reporters just keep making statements up. But I do know that they're message control is terrible, and so I don't believe a single thing with "police have said" in front of it.