Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Case not filed immediately goes down to three things;

1. Lack of any witness who could say what happened with certainty.
2. The claim of self defense seemed reasonable if you assumed Martin was a thug.
3. The race of the victim immediately made him the perp to those in charge of the case.

1. still true
2. demonstrated to be the case
3. You are calling everyone in the SA office racists ?

 

[johnny karate]

"I was punched in the face repeatedly, and my head was banged on the concrete repeatedly, so I admit I'm not entirely clear on the time just prior to being attacked."

We're not talking about the time just prior to the altercation.

What these witnesses have been describing is the actual altercation, and how it differs from the way Zimmerman described it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

"There was very little investigation" means that the State didn't find him guilty and hang him immediately.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

2. The claim of self defense seemed reasonable if you assumed Martin was a thug.

Evidence which has come out since the incident shows that Martin was at worst a thug, at best a thug wannabe.

 

[BenBurch]

1. still true
2. demonstrated to be the case
3. You are calling everyone in the SA office racists ?

3. Yes. Because all human beings are racists. You are. I am. Nelson Mandella is. Ghandi was. We distrust those different from us instinctively. This is the reason that in my state, though drug use is about the same percentage in the two populations, black people have like several times the number of marijuana arrests that white people do when you compute it as a rate. And this is true nationwide in general.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Worse, they are derived from that part of the population that can't figure a way out of serving.

This is a tired bit of wit. Many people, including intelligent people, have no problem giving their time to serving on a jury. Just because you might prefer not to, doesn't mean that everyone shares that preference. Why, exactly, do you feel that serving on a jury is so terrible that it speaks about the low quality of someone's intelligence if they don't choose to avoid it?

 

[Bob001]

This is a tired bit of wit. Many people, including intelligent people, have no problem giving their time to serving on a jury. Just because you might prefer not to, doesn't mean that everyone shares that preference. Why, exactly, do you feel that serving on a jury is so terrible that it speaks about the low quality of someone's intelligence if they don't choose to avoid it?

Serving on a jury might be a civic duty. But serving on a very high-profile murder case, where you know that whatever verdict you reach will be scrutinized around the world, where you know that you will be hounded by the media, and where you know that your life could be in danger from deranged partisans of one side or another is assuredly not anyone's duty. The fact that the jurors knew they would -- or at least could -- be sequestered also narrows the pool substantially. A parent of young children, a college student, someone who runs a business or works for commissions or whose employer won't cover his/her salary would be hard-pressed to serve. So the jurors really are people who have no other demands on their time. That's an atypical slice of the community. I certainly would have done anything I needed to do to get off this case.

 

[Dissolution]

Serving on a jury might be a civic duty. But serving on a very high-profile murder case, where you know that whatever verdict you reach will be scrutinized around the world, where you know that you will be hounded by the media, and where you know that your life could be in danger from deranged partisans of one side or another is assuredly not anyone's duty. The fact that the jurors knew they would -- or at least could -- be sequestered also narrows the pool substantially. A parent of young children, a college student, someone who runs a business or works for commissions or whose employer won't cover his/her salary would be hard-pressed to serve. So the jurors really are people who have no other demands on their time. That's an atypical slice of the community. I certainly would have done anything I needed to do to get off this case.

Some of them are probably aware of the opportunities that such attention could offer them after the trial too, though.
Not something that I'd want personally, but I'm sure some enterprising individuals are already working out the best ways to make money from it.

 

[Piggy]

Okay... but then you go on to state an opinion:


The defense denies Zimmerman confronted Martin, that it was Martin that confronted Zimmerman.

Not my point.

What I said was that Zimmerman did something which any reasonable person would know was likely to lead to a physical confrontation.

There's no way any reasonable person would go pursue someone on foot -- especially someone he suspects of being up to no good -- and not realize that it could end up in a confrontation.

It's simply not plausible that Zimmerman could have had no idea that following someone -- again, especially someone he thought might be a criminal -- might end up in a conflict.

Now I'll repeat, this is not specifically relevant to this trial.

But if GZ is not at least partly responsible for TM's death, it means that in Florida you can take unnecessary actions, even against the advice of law enforcement, which you are fully aware may end up in an avoidable conflict -- regardless of who technically "initiates" it -- then when the conflict occurs, if you get the worst of it, you're entitled to kill the person with whom you would not reasonably have had a conflict had you not taken the unnecessary and avoidable action which any reasonable person should know might end up in a fight.

It's kind of like if I were to walk up and down Daytona beach in the evening calling people a-holes, while armed, then when someone takes a swing at me, I shoot them.

A bad state of legislation, clearly.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not my point.

What I said was that Zimmerman did something which any reasonable person would know was likely to lead to a physical confrontation.

There's no way any reasonable person would go pursue someone on foot -- especially someone he suspects of being up to no good -- and not realize that it could end up in a confrontation.

It's simply not plausible that Zimmerman could have had no idea that following someone -- again, especially someone he thought might be a criminal -- might end up in a conflict.

Now I'll repeat, this is not specifically relevant to this trial.

But if GZ is not at least partly responsible for TM's death, it means that in Florida you can take unnecessary actions, even against the advice of law enforcement, which you are fully aware may end up in an avoidable conflict -- regardless of who technically "initiates" it -- then when the conflict occurs, if you get the worst of it, you're entitled to kill the person with whom you would not reasonably have had a conflict had you not taken the unnecessary and avoidable action which any reasonable person should know might end up in a fight.

It's kind of like if I were to walk up and down Daytona beach in the evening calling people a-holes, while armed, then when someone takes a swing at me, I shoot them.

A bad state of legislation, clearly.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Martin had the option of not attacking Zimmerman.

 

[Unabogie]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Martin had the option of not attacking Zimmerman.

If everyone believed this part, there would be no trial. That last part is in dispute.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Not my point.

What I said was that Zimmerman did something which any reasonable person would know was likely to lead to a physical confrontation.

There's no way any reasonable person would go pursue someone on foot -- especially someone he suspects of being up to no good -- and not realize that it could end up in a confrontation.

It's simply not plausible that Zimmerman could have had no idea that following someone -- again, especially someone he thought might be a criminal -- might end up in a conflict.

Now I'll repeat, this is not specifically relevant to this trial.

But if GZ is not at least partly responsible for TM's death, it means that in Florida you can take unnecessary actions, even against the advice of law enforcement, which you are fully aware may end up in an avoidable conflict -- regardless of who technically "initiates" it -- then when the conflict occurs, if you get the worst of it, you're entitled to kill the person with whom you would not reasonably have had a conflict had you not taken the unnecessary and avoidable action which any reasonable person should know might end up in a fight.

It's kind of like if I were to walk up and down Daytona beach in the evening calling people a-holes, while armed, then when someone takes a swing at me, I shoot them.

A bad state of legislation, clearly.

PLEASE stop taking the thread off topic, it's going to cause it to get closed, these issues have been discussed ad nausem in the other thread.

 

[BenBurch]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Martin had the option of not attacking Zimmerman.

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury; however, a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat, when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle").

So, eliminate duty to retreat, and you have what needs to be proven. How would being punched by Martin (which we have no proof of one way or the other) rise to that test?

 

[Piggy]

PLEASE stop taking the thread off topic, it's going to cause it to get closed, these issues have been discussed ad nausem in the other thread.

No problem. I didn't expect a reply, actually. I'll unsubscribe.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If everyone believed this part, there would be no trial. That last part is in dispute.

Those looking at it critically believe it.

Had Trayvon Martin been "Whitey" Martin, there would be no trial.

 

[bookworm]

The case wasn't filed immediately because there was very little initial investigation.

 

[lane99]

He never met a Mexican who didn't pull a knife on him

Zimmerman posted crude racist diatribes online.
.
.

 

[MikeMangum]

So, eliminate duty to retreat, and you have what needs to be proven. How would being punched by Martin (which we have no proof of one way or the other) rise to that test?

Assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth, duty to retreat wouldn't even enter into it all because Martin was on top of him. Assuming that is true, Zimmerman would be unable to retreat.

As far as the danger of being punched in that situation, try this

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Those looking at it critically believe it.

Had Trayvon Martin been "Whitey" Martin, there would be no trial.

Had Trayvon Martin been a white kid, and George Zimmerman a black man, Zimmerman would already be cooling his heels on death row.

 

[Mumbles]

I'd be careful with the racist calling. Sure looks like TM was more of a racist than anyone on Zimmerman's team.

Not in evidence.