Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[marplots]

What does Taaffe have to do with this?

He was selling Trayvon the weed.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Wounds aren't required to justify self-defense, just fear of great bodily harm.

Um ya, but it has to be reasonable fear, and since TM didn't have a gun pointed at GZ to cause such reasonable fear, we instead look at the beating GZ was receiving to gauge whether GZ was reasonable in fearing great bodily harm. And how do we judge that? One way is by looking at the wounds. If you don't think the wounds are relevant to help us judge if his fear was reasonable, you don't understand the law.

 

[johnny karate]

Um ya, but it has to be reasonable fear, and since TM didn't have a gun pointed at GZ to cause such reasonable fear, we instead look at the beating GZ was receiving to gauge whether GZ was reasonable in fearing great bodily harm. And how do we judge that? One way is by looking at the wounds. If you don't think the wounds are relevant to help us judge if his fear was reasonable, you don't understand the law.

And here those wounds are in their totality, as documented in the medical records:

• Broken nose
• 2 small cuts on the back of his head (2 cm and .5 cm)
• Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not by the doctor the next day)

Personally, I don't see how any of these injuries elevates the altercation from "fist fight" to "attempted murder".

And I particularly don't see how these injuries match up with the version of events Zimmerman has put forward. A point not many people here seem willing to address.

 

[BenBurch]

Except it falls into the same trap as the Zimmermanistas do. They assume a fantastical scenario in which innocent old George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running, and Trayvon attacked him out of the bushes for looking at him funny.

Your new scenario paints George as a gun totin' wild west vigilante.

How about George was an overzealous guy who decided to exercise horrible judgment and tried to detain a kid he thought was a criminal, which resulted in an altercation in which he lost control and shot the kid?

No conspiracies, no James Bond, no grand coincidences.

He profiled an innocent kid, scare him, the kid ran, he chased him, he tried to grab him, they fought, he grabbed his gun in fear or anger and killed him. Then he told a story that fell apart with an ounce of scrutiny.

That fits the known facts best of all.

I have no doubt it went down something like that. Can they convince a jury?

 

[Bob001]

What does Taaffe have to do with this?

The impression I had was that GZ saw TM near Taaffe's house, and that in an interview with police GZ said he knew Taaffe routinely left his doors unlocked. If that's not true, please ignore my questions.

 

[GWCarver]

Um ya, but it has to be reasonable fear, and since TM didn't have a gun pointed at GZ to cause such reasonable fear, we instead look at the beating GZ was receiving to gauge whether GZ was reasonable in fearing great bodily harm. And how do we judge that? One way is by looking at the wounds. If you don't think the wounds are relevant to help us judge if his fear was reasonable, you don't understand the law.

I don't recall the law mentioning wounds, just fear, and I believe his recorded screams show he feared great bodily harm. His wounds are certainly relevant, but not necessary for defending himself with lethal force.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

And here those wounds are in their totality, as documented in the medical records:

• Broken nose
• 2 small cuts on the back of his head (2 cm and .5 cm)
• Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not by the doctor the next day)

Personally, I don't see how any of these injuries elevates the altercation from "fist fight" to "attempted murder".

OK, for a second let's just assume we believe GZ's account. If we do, then you have to judge the altercation from the standpoint of an aggressive stranger attacking you on the street at night. You know, the type of stuff where you read about people getting killed all the time. You can try to make it sound minimal in your list above, but the person getting his nose broken and head cut would typically be in terror in that circumstance. I sure know I would. So again, that's why I say I think it's borderline. The injuries are not that significant, but in that context how long does a person wait before they shoot if they are armed?

Again, I'm challenging people to answer that scenario as if they believe GZ. If you don't believe him that lack of belief in his story should really be a completely separate judgement. Hopefully what I mean by that is clear.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't recall the law mentioning wounds, just fear, and I believe his recorded screams show he feared great bodily harm.

The law cites reasonable fear.

That being said, how do you measure the amount of fear in a scream, and how do you determine if that fear is reasonable?

His wounds are certainly relevant, but not necessary for defending himself with lethal force.

But his wounds are most certainly relevant in assessing the veracity of his story.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I don't recall the law mentioning wounds, just fear, and I believe his recorded screams show he feared great bodily harm. His wounds are certainly relevant, but not necessary for defending himself with lethal force.

So if I'm really really scared of black people I can shoot one using your definition, right? As long as I'm sincere in my fear?

 

[crimresearch]

Um ya, but it has to be reasonable fear, and since TM didn't have a gun pointed at GZ to cause such reasonable fear, we instead look at the beating GZ was receiving to gauge whether GZ was reasonable in fearing great bodily harm. And how do we judge that? One way is by looking at the wounds. If you don't think the wounds are relevant to help us judge if his fear was reasonable, you don't understand the law.

That's where we sorta part ways.

The legal standard allows a defendant to be completely wrong about there actually being a threat. They have to convince a jury that what they *perceived* made them think the threat was imminent, not that the threat was real..

The classic example is the pointing of a replica gun at someone who reacts with deadly force. There was no real threat, but the belief was reasonable.

It is nowhere near as clear cut in the case of the 'I thought he was going to get my own gun and kill me' assertion, but the premise remains.

I know there were a bunch of dramatic comments about how horribly Zimmerman thought he was was being beaten, but it is still more of a stretch than I would buy. Generally speaking, fists alone don't legitimize bullets as a response.

Back to the 'that's what a murderer would say after they had time to think of a better story...' OR 'that's what an innocent person would say if it really went down like that', square one.

 

[BenBurch]

So if I'm really really scared of black people I can shoot one using your definition, right? As long as I'm sincere in my fear?

I believe I heard that as an objection to the law.

 

[crimresearch]

so if i'm really really scared of black people i can shoot one using your definition, right? As long as i'm sincere in my fear?

It depends on the totality of the circumstances. Could there ever, in the whole history of the world, be such a situation? Maybe.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That's where we sorta part ways.

The legal standard allows a defendant to be completely wrong about there actually being a threat. They have to convince a jury that what they *perceived* made them think the threat was imminent, not that the threat was real..

The classic example is the pointing of a replica gun at someone who reacts with deadly force. There was no real[/i] threat, but the belief was reasonable.

Understand and agree, but it doesn't seem to me like my explanation that you quoted is in conflict with that. I did not say that the threat had to be real, rather that his perception of it had to be reasonable. So I'd think you'd have to look at the context of each situation to determine that.

 

[GWCarver]

So if I'm really really scared of black people I can shoot one using your definition, right? As long as I'm sincere in my fear?

No, I don't think that kind of general paranoia would be acceptable as a defense unless it was an insanity plea. I am talking about this case only, per the events described by Zimmerman, and the application of Florida law. I thought you knew that.

 

[crimresearch]

Understand and agree, but it doesn't seem to me like my explanation that you quoted is in conflict with that. I did not say that the threat had to be real, rather that his perception of it had to be reasonable. So I'd think you'd have to look at the context of each situation to determine that.

Whatever the perceived threat, it still has to fall into the 'deadly' category to justify a deadly response.

I happen to be especially skeptical about the *imminent* death of GZ from being punched. No doubt he was attacked, no doubt he was injured, no doubt he would have been justified in returning the amount of force needed to stop the punches...
Big doubt that shooting would be justified in that scenario.

He needs the gun grab.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Maybe TM did this to GZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKHVuLEZ4YU&feature=player_detailpage#t=126s

 

[GWCarver]

The impression I had was that GZ saw TM near Taaffe's house, and that in an interview with police GZ said he knew Taaffe routinely left his doors unlocked. If that's not true, please ignore my questions.

Are you sure you aren't attempting to launch a grand conspiracy theory? I see a couple of components in your initial post on the subject of Taaffe that are included in such theories elsewhere. If that is the case, I don't think it will resonate with the locals. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[Bob001]

Are you sure you aren't attempting to launch a grand conspiracy theory? I see a couple of components in your initial post on the subject of Taaffe that are included in such theories elsewhere. If that is the case, I don't think it will resonate with the locals. Forewarned is forearmed.

This particular conspiracy theory has been launched by others. I was asking if there's any evidence supporting it. If, say, neighbors saw GZ parked in the area that he said he was just driving by on the way to the store -- and so far no one has made such a claim -- it might put subsequent events in a different light.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8418727&postcount=1464

 

[Rare Truth]

What does Taaffe have to do with this?

Be assured: Frank Taaffe will be playing a part in this case.

Expect to see him on the witness stand.

 

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Bob001
...
It would be more interesting to know if he drove somewhere other than a straight route from his house to the gate out of the community, or if a neighbor saw him parked near Taaffe's house just before the event, or if he or Taaffe called each other before GZ left his house, or how long before the event Taaffe left his own house, apparently leaving his doors and windows open.

He called FT a few weeks earlier, when there was another suspicious black guy in FT's yard. GZ called to tell him while he was waiting for the cops, according to FT anyway.

You can hear FT say that here, in this interview with the Orlando Sentinel:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...-talks-about-impact-of-fatal-Sanford-shooting

In this FT talks about a "perfect storm" of Zimmerman's frustration, that the gun was used "out of anger."

FT talks about how GZ called him about the window being open, although, in GZ's telling to police that night, it was more than a window, it was all windows and garage door open. (and FT said he told GZ when he called to tell him of the guy 'casing' his house at that moment - that yes, FT knew his window was open.)

You may recall this post of mine a while back with a partial transcribe of that interview with GZ & police regarding the FT part:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8418077&postcount=1458