Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Alt+F4]

Is it your further contention that if a 50 year old woman of any color had walked by, that he wouldn't have been torn as to whether to switch pursuit?

Hey! I'm only 47.

 

[nadsat]

It's unbelievable how much falsehoods are being repeated in this thread, especially by ones who just popped in throwing around their ill-informed assertions while at the same admitting not reading any of the thread. I swear everything is getting repeated every 3 to 5 pages.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you blame that on Zimmerman, though ?

The 'leaked' police report does mention his injuries. The police also apparently have GZs clothes.

It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of belief. And I'm not going to believe an unsubstantiated, self-serving claim until evidence is presented.

 

[crimresearch]

Fortunately, as I figured, this isn't the case. See my above post with links to information on "affirmative defense." If you admit to the killing, you have to PROVE that the justifying circumstances you're claiming actually occurred. Georgie-Boy has to go to court and prove that Trayvon aggressively attacked him, and even then he's going to have to answer for his own actions, including getting out of his car and chasing the boy while having a visible firearm, and explain why, in reality Trayvon isn't the one who was actually justified in attacking him.

It really looks like our little child-killer is in VERY hot-water, as are the police who were negligent and ignorant enough in their duties to let him go without investigation or arrest.

I pointed out what an 'affirmative defense' was thousands of posts ago, so forgive me if I don't check to see if it has changed in the last few days. I'm guessing something that drastic would have made it to my inbox somehow...


And you may have misunderstood actus reus and mens rea as well as the burden of proof just a bit.
In our adversarial court system the prosecution has to *prove* that you did not reasonably believe that you were in serious danger. That can be pretty hard to do sometimes.

Under those circumstances (and particularly with the lack of hard evidence in this case), guilty people can walk free... or not. Innocent people can also walk free or not.

Which way do you think it will go for Zimmerman?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fortunately, as I figured, this isn't the case. See my above post with links to information on "affirmative defense." If you admit to the killing, you have to PROVE that the justifying circumstances you're claiming actually occurred. Georgie-Boy has to go to court and prove that Trayvon aggressively attacked him, and even then he's going to have to answer for his own actions, including getting out of his car and chasing the boy while having a visible firearm, and explain why, in reality Trayvon isn't the one who was actually justified in attacking him.

It really looks like our little child-killer is in VERY hot-water, as are the police who were negligent and ignorant enough in their duties to let him go without investigation or arrest.

So at least 1 witness claims that TM was on GZ and GZ was screaming for help. These screams can be heard on the 911 calls.

Do you believe that GZ claiming self defense and this witness account would qualify as an 'affirmative defense' ?

 

[leftysergeant]

That being said, regardless of whether he muttered that ridiculously stupid statement (and double-plus stupid if he said it on tape)...it seems quite clear that he was indeed in an aggravated mood while pursuing Martin. The real self-defense justification is probably on Martin's side.

Z was known to have been in an aggitated state at the time he contacted the police. He described Martin as appearing agitated. It should be clear that both could have observed signs of the other's state of mind at that point. Martin would, then, have seen that the fat schmuck standing in his way had a screw loose and was a danger to him, and responded appropriately.

All Z can prove by bringing up Martin's conduct is to show that Z is an ignorant putz.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Just frustration and disgust. All I have seen to this point is that Zimmerman had the gun in a visible holster, I don't know when the gun actually came out and obviously we have only Zimmerman's testimony, which is about as reliable as a cotton-candy trampoline.

OK, thanks. I think it was reported a few pages back the policed recovered some sort of waistband holster.


ETA: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8149170&highlight=waistband#post8149170
IDK if it was an inside waistband - but I assume it would be - which means not visible, not brandishing, right ?

 

[EGarrett]

So I think the jury is likely to have to decide if you can stalk someone who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous, confront them, get into a shouting match, have it escalate into a fist fight, and then if you start getting the worst of it, shoot someone to death.

Sounds like a bad precedent, because then what's to stop any bully from mixing it up with whoever they please? If they can beat up their victim, then they've won the fight... if they start losing, they can kill the guy.

If it does turn out that this is the crux of the case, I see Zimmerman going to jail for manslaughter... maybe 60 months?

Well from what I've looked up, Zimmerman has the burden of proof to show that Martin actually attacked him first, which is going to be an uphill battle given his aggravated speech and aggressive pursuit of Martin while Martin was attempting to flee. Furthermore he apparently had the gun in a visible holster while pursuing Martin, which would actually mean that Martin was justified even if Martin attacked him first.

That being said, I have been doing my amateur google-legal research, and in regards to sentencing, it should be noted that I've found that in Florida, the crime will apparently be elevated to the next degree because a firearm was involved, and on top of that it involves a child and actual aggressive behavior by the killer, in which case I think we're starting with a baseline of voluntary manslaughter that can end-up as second-degree murder. Which is life in prison.

Bye-bye Georgie. It's not looking good.

 

[leftysergeant]

So at least 1 witness claims that TM was on GZ and GZ was screaming for help. These screams can be heard on the 911 calls.

Do you believe that GZ claiming self defense and this witness account would qualify as an 'affirmative defense' ?

That he was screaming for help like a little wussie boy is not much of a defense. It could also have been a reason for Martin to suspect that the little fop had homies somewhere in the area whom he expected to come help him out.

 

[Kestrel]

That suspicion appears to be based on his being black.

GZ seemed to be reasoning this way: The burglars who had broken into homes in his neighborhood were young, black and male. Therefore all young, black males in his neighborhood are burglars.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of belief. And I'm not going to believe an unsubstantiated, self-serving claim until evidence is presented.

That's fine. It was hard for me to interpret your statement:

So would medical documents or mention in the police report. All of which have been conspicuously absent...
It sounded as if you implied they were absent due to some sort of cover up or something.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That he was screaming for help like a little wussie boy is not much of a defense. It could also have been a reason for Martin to suspect that the little fop had homies somewhere in the area whom he expected to come help him out.

I swear, if your name calling choices didn't amuse me so much I would put you on ignore.

 

[Giz]

his aggravated speech and aggressive pursuit of Martin while Martin was attempting to flee.

Was this were he -unintelligibly - swears at his phone? Or where he, as a concerned resident, is following a suspicious stranger (while on the phone to police - as a good neighborhood watcher should be)?

Furthermore he apparently had the gun in a visible holster while pursuing Martin,

Source that an In-Waistband-Holster was visible?

 

[crimresearch]

How does this apply to justification? I wasn't talking about killing someone unintentionally, but rather killing someone based on a justification that has no basis in reality.

And how I was specifically referring to Zimmerman is in what prompted him to arm himself and follow Martin. He had no justification in doing so. Sure, he may have thought he did, but that is irrelevant. He should have stayed in his car, like the police advised him and the rules of his neighborhood watch program dictated.

The act, the mental state, *and* whether it was accidental or intentional are all facets of deciding if a crime has been committed... and if so, which crime.


It is quite possible to pull a trigger intentionally, end up shooting someone, and yet not be guilty of murder. The death of Brandon Lee would be an example of no mens rea, even though the act of pulling the trigger and shooting him was intentional.
Self defense is another prime example of that.
The M'naghten defense used to rest on the same premise.

And no, I'm not saying that any of this proves anything about Zimmerman... these are simply the rules by which the courts are run.

 

[Checkmite]

I doubt if there is any such change that would prevent the media from hyping it to that extent... as evidenced by the fact that SYG doesn't even apply in this situation (no 'ground' was stood), yet the notion that 'SYG let Zimmerman get away with murder' still runs rampant.

Zimmerman's lawyer has stated on TV that he plans to evoke SYG. The particulars of this case aside, it's been argued in this thread that the language of SYG theoretically makes it possible for two people to confront each other and escalate a fight to the point where each has a lawful right kill the other. That may be great when you're playing EVE Online; but as a law governing civilized interaction it's practically a joke.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Hey! I'm only 47.

Lose the hoodie, it adds years to you.

 

[EGarrett]

I pointed out what an 'affirmative defense' was thousands of posts ago, so forgive me if I don't check to see if it has changed in the last few days. I'm guessing something that drastic would have made it to my inbox somehow...

And you may have misunderstood actus reus and mens rea as well as the burden of proof just a bit.
In our adversarial court system the prosecution has to *prove* that you did not reasonably believe that you were in serious danger. That can be pretty hard to do sometimes.

Under those circumstances (and particularly with the lack of hard evidence in this case), guilty people can walk free... or not. Innocent people can also walk free or not.

Which way do you think it will go for Zimmerman?

Well that sounds like an insanity-defense. I don't know what will come out if this goes to a trial (disgusting that we have to say "if"), but if Zimmerman may have believed he was in imminent danger due to a racist attitude or drunken state of mind...I don't see how that can justify his behavior when a reasonable person would probably never have believed it and never have taken a gun and chased the boy down. Unless this is the same as claiming you're not guilty by reason of insanity. And if it isn't, it would seem quite clear that if you admit to killing someone, as the affirmative defense states, you would have to prove that those circumstances occurred, which makes perfect sense since otherwise it basically legalizes murder as long as there are no witnesses. Grand Theft Auto 4 is a good video game, but I don't think its punishment system applies in real-life.

Furthermore, what about the issue of Trayvon's perspective? Isn't Trayvon justified in attacking a man who was obstructing his path, wouldn't leave him alone, then left his car, revealing that he had a GUN in a visible holster, and started chasing him down on foot? No matter what Zimmerman may be able to prove about Trayvon attacking him, it may be that Trayvon SHOULD have attacked him under the law.

This may be Amanda Knox II.

 

[Checkmite]

Source that an In-Waistband-Holster was visible?

There's such thing as an in-waistband holster? That's gotta be pinchy and uncomfortable.

At any rate, I'd think a gun on the inside of your waistband would still be fairly conspicuous; unless you have to reach all the way into your pants to draw it. Wouldn't the gun handle be sticking out above the waistband?

 

[Dancing David]

It's unbelievable how much falsehoods are being repeated in this thread, especially by ones who just popped in throwing around their ill-informed assertions while at the same admitting not reading any of the thread. I swear everything is getting repeated every 3 to 5 pages.

The four lives of this thread, we will enter the fifth soon. Fortunately the name calling has stilled for a while.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Furthermore, what about the issue of Trayvon's perspective? Isn't Trayvon justified in attacking a man who was obstructing his path, wouldn't leave him alone, then left his car, revealing that he had a GUN in a visible holster, and started chasing him down on foot? No matter what Zimmerman may be able to prove about Trayvon attacking him, it may be that Trayvon SHOULD have attacked him under the law.

This may be Amanda Knox II.

Both of those

It was discussed earlier that it was perhaps the 'perfect' *********, and under the law it was possible both GZ and TM could be justified in attacking each other.