Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As noted before, Stand Your Ground law was not a part of this trial.

The lesson here seems to be if you're a 17 year-old, 6' 1" "child" with recent pictures of guns, drugs and drug use on your cellphone and you've racially profiled someone following you as a "creepy-assed cracker," it might be a better idea to call 9-11 and have him picked up for questioning instead of calling your girlfriend then laying in wait for the "creepy-assed cracker," one-punching him to the ground, wailing on him then being surprised when he drills you in a State where half the population is likely packing.

Martin made some bad choices. He got himself killed because of it.

Cowperson

Under "the law" isn't Martin a child at 17? Why did you quote that? What does Martin's pictures of guns (which as has been stated many times, legal to carry in Florida) and previous drug use have to do with this case? What about Martin's fear for his own safety when a random guy on a power trip seems to be stalking him in a threatening manner, and for no apparent reason at all? And you know what -- even if Martin threw the first punch, why does it automatically allow someone to pull a gun and kill him? What happens in a bar fight? Some guy hits you and you can gun him down without consequence?

Also, your post seems to be remarkably like rape apologists when they insinuate that a girl who dressed provocatively, slept around, and drank a lot, gets raped -- the suggestion that somehow she brought on her own fate in the ordeal. I don't see much difference between that argument and what you posted above.

Fact is a 17 year old kid got killed because Florida laws allow for guys like Zimmerman to try to take the law into their own hands. Its a pretty ridiculous way of allowing society to operate IMO.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Igottago

What about Martin's fear for his own safety when a random guy on a power trip seems to be stalking him in a threatening manner, and for no apparent reason at all? And you know what -- even if Martin threw the first punch, why does it automatically allow someone to pull a gun and kill him? What happens in a bar fight? Some guy hits you and you can gun him down without consequence?.

These are fair questions. Defenders argued that Martin could have just walked home after Zimmerman dropped his pursuit, if that was the case I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Martin feared for his life. He didn't need to go back, by doing so he became the aggressor and threat.

If Martin threw the first punch, it doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. No one has argued that. However, if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, he had the right to defend himself from his attacker. That was the argument.

Bar fights, while forgetting about SYG for one second, can usually be prevented by walking away. Usually. If a person walks away from a bar fight and is assaulted from the back, that's not a fight and the guy could legally defend himself if he thought his life was in jeopardy. Usually though the bar fights cooler-heads don't prevail and both parties refuse to leave, you can't claim self-defense if there's an option of getting out of the situation you didn't try to exercise. Now that's a bit different with SYG laws, but this wasn't a SYG case so it's a bit irrelevant. And of course self-defense laws vary from place to place.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Witness accounts say that Martin was beating on Zimmerman MMA style.

If Martin was defending himself once Zimmerman was done, that should have been it. Pouncing on him once down is excessive and where the shooting in self defence comes into play.


I want to be clear. I don't think that Zimmerman should have been able to shoot Martin. I think that law is scary and foolish. However it is the law and this why he was acquitted.


Actually if Zimmerman did confront Martin and Martin punched him out of fear, and then left that's fine. Being on top of him throwing punches is not.

That's not self defence.

Also to keep in mind, this situation wouldn't happen in Canada. No gun, reasonable force, proportional responses are all things our system believes in. Which may be why this verdict is so hard to swallow, because Florida doesn't believe in those things.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Witness accounts say that Martin was beating on Zimmerman MMA style.

If Martin was defending himself once Zimmerman was done, that should have been it. Pouncing on him once down is excessive and where the shooting in self defence comes into play.

Looking over everything, this is the one segment that I think will be the centre of most post-decision debates. What were Martin's intentions when he was on top and pounding away on Zimmerman? If he was acting in self defence, then on would wonder how far he needed to go? Did he need Zimmerman unconscious so he couldn't be chased? Did he need Zimmerman dead? If he did initiate or seemed intent on killing Zimmerman, it's obvious that would qualify as a justifiable murder by definition. However, if Martin was acting in self defence to an attack by Zimmerman, then we could go the other way.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Actually if Zimmerman did confront Martin and Martin punched him out of fear, and then left that's fine. Being on top of him throwing punches is not.

That's not self defence.

Again, I think that depends on intention. I'm not sure about where the law is on this, but I would presume a fight ends when one is unable to continue or is conceding defeat. If Zimmerman was in a fight and Martin just punched him and Zimmerman hit the ground, it would make sense in Martin's mind, in my view, that it's plausible that there's no proof yet Zimmerman couldn't just get up again and continue pursuit. Martin needed him out cold to prevent any more agitation.

If Zimmerman was obviously (and I will stress obvious. Heat of the moment passion is strong when it comes to fighting) unable to do anything from thereon out and Martin was just mindlessly venting using his fists past when Zimmerman could fight back or continue following Martin around, then it's unnecessary.

But I stress that this is an area where things are tough to figure out. What we know with certainty was that Martin was on top, likely "winning" the fight, and Zimmerman was in a lot of trouble. Intentions are lost due to key person in this scenario being dead.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

It's true that there will be debate. The fact there is debate means there is reasonable doubt and this am acquittal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Under "the law" isn't Martin a child at 17? Why did you quote that? What does Martin's pictures of guns (which as has been stated many times, legal to carry in Florida) and previous drug use have to do with this case? What about Martin's fear for his own safety when a random guy on a power trip seems to be stalking him in a threatening manner, and for no apparent reason at all? And you know what -- even if Martin threw the first punch, why does it automatically allow someone to pull a gun and kill him? What happens in a bar fight? Some guy hits you and you can gun him down without consequence?

Also, your post seems to be remarkably like rape apologists when they insinuate that a girl who dressed provocatively, slept around, and drank a lot, gets raped -- the suggestion that somehow she brought on her own fate in the ordeal. I don't see much difference between that argument and what you posted above.

Fact is a 17 year old kid got killed because Florida laws allow for guys like Zimmerman to try to take the law into their own hands. Its a pretty ridiculous way of allowing society to operate IMO.

Except Zimmerman was no longer in pursuit, by testimony Martin basically searched Zimmerman out and confronted him. He in effect became the aggressor.

On top of that Martin again by testimony initiated the physical violence in the encounter.

Zimmerman was bearing the wounds of a pretty significant attack. Witnesses had Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him, wounds also showed more then one blow to the back of the head where Martin probably drove his head into the concrete.

The prosecution even screwed up during the re-enactment by pointing out that Zimmerman's gun was still in his belt which would have been under Martin's left thigh. So the theory of Zimmerman pulling out a gun and threatening Martin prior to the shooting was disproved.

At the point that Zimmerman walked back to his truck and broke off pursuit and Martin instead of leaving going home pursued Zimmerman and confronted him then attacked him, it switched to Zimmerman being in jeopardy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Also, your post seems to be remarkably like rape apologists when they insinuate that a girl who dressed provocatively, slept around, and drank a lot, gets raped -- the suggestion that somehow she brought on her own fate in the ordeal. I don't see much difference between that argument and what you posted above.

Funny, that's how I feel seems to be the argument for people against Zimmerman. Obviously point of view is everything but when people are saying Zimmerman shouldn't have had.... shouldn't have done...should have done..if he's doing nothing illegal, you shouldn't be able to tell him what to do and he should not have to sacrifice his right for self-defense because he made a poor, but legal, choice and became a victim. If his story is closer to reality.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by kirant

Looking over everything, this is the one segment that I think will be the centre of most post-decision debates. What were Martin's intentions when he was on top and pounding away on Zimmerman? If he was acting in self defence, then on would wonder how far he needed to go? Did he need Zimmerman unconscious so he couldn't be chased? Did he need Zimmerman dead? If he did initiate or seemed intent on killing Zimmerman, it's obvious that would qualify as a justifiable murder by definition. However, if Martin was acting in self defence to an attack by Zimmerman, then we could go the other way.

Interesting except for the witness testimony from the neighbour or 7-11 clerk of Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top and Zimmerman screaming for help.

And the minute that Martin had control, if he would have stopped and contained then that would be fine. But the fact that he was battering Zimmerman's face and banged Zimmerman's head into the concrete at least twice, wasn't self defense, it would have been considered an assault. And come on, banging a guys head off the concrete isn't a self defense act especially if you do it multiple times.

Originally Posted by kirant

Again, I think that depends on intention. I'm not sure about where the law is on this, but I would presume a fight ends when one is unable to continue or is conceding defeat. If Zimmerman was in a fight and Martin just punched him and Zimmerman hit the ground, it would make sense in Martin's mind, in my view, that it's plausible that there's no proof yet Zimmerman couldn't just get up again and continue pursuit. Martin needed him out cold to prevent any more agitation.

If Zimmerman was obviously (and I will stress obvious. Heat of the moment passion is strong when it comes to fighting) unable to do anything from thereon out and Martin was just mindlessly venting using his fists past when Zimmerman could fight back or continue following Martin around, then it's unnecessary.

But I stress that this is an area where things are tough to figure out. What we know with certainty was that Martin was on top, likely "winning" the fight, and Zimmerman was in a lot of trouble. Intentions are lost due to key person in this scenario being dead.

The jury can't think about intentions unless there is testimony to that effect, Martin is dead, Zimmerman didn't testify. So intention becomes irrelevant.

Its cold but there was reasonable doubt in the jurys mind both foe murder two and manslaughter.

Getting into intentions is irrelevant.

Remember that the prosecutor tried to do that at the start of the trial and the end of the trial in his closing, and it meant nothing to the jurors. They're not psychics.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

It's true that there will be debate. The fact there is debate means there is reasonable doubt and this am acquittal.

Bingo

[MelBridgeman]

Bottom line is the SYG law to most people is stupid.

You have the right to defend yourself, but that shouldn't include taking someone's right to live. Zimmerman was not in any danger of losing his life, the gun should not of been used unless absolutely necessary - it was no where near that point - I don't believe that Martin would of taken it that far and if he tried he would of been stopped anyway - either by police or a witness.

But in Florida you can defend your right by taking away another persons.

Going after Zimmerman doesn't do anything ... people should be going after that stupid SYG law.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Interesting except for the witness testimony from the neighbour or 7-11 clerk of Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top and Zimmerman screaming for help.

Could you point out which testimonies those were? Andrew Gaugh is a listed clerk on Wikipedia, but his testimony seems to be questionable, and there are a lot of neighbours listed...reading it in the early morning (3 AM) wasn't a good idea for name recognition.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And the minute that Martin had control, if he would have stopped and contained then that would be fine. But the fact that he was battering Zimmerman's face and banged Zimmerman's head into the concrete at least twice, wasn't self defense, it would have been considered an assault. And come on, banging a guys head off the concrete isn't a self defense act especially if you do it multiple times.

I am pretty on your side when you mention that. Defining where the fight ends and assault begins is huge in this case. I haven't been able to hear the expert's opinion on Martin's options in full, though I do recall the humorous Chuck Norris/Pee Wee Herman comment. If even someone like Martin could have contained Zimmerman until police arrived (and it was obvious that he could), then it's assault. I'm not sure where self-defence would stand if Martin didn't seem capable of being able to restrain Zimmerman. What does self-defence proclaim you capable of doing if you can't restrain the guy in question?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The jury can't think about intentions unless there is testimony to that effect, Martin is dead, Zimmerman didn't testify. So intention becomes irrelevant.

Its cold but there was reasonable doubt in the jurys mind both foe murder two and manslaughter.

Getting into intentions is irrelevant.

Fair enough. If it wasn't raised, then it's dropped. Decisions have to be made with presented evidence.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Bottom line is the SYG law to most people is stupid.

You have the right to defend yourself, but that shouldn't include taking someone's right to live. Zimmerman was not in any danger of losing his life, the gun should not of been used unless absolutely necessary - it was no where near that point - I don't believe that Martin would of taken it that far and if he tried he would of been stopped anyway - either by police or a witness.

But in Florida you can defend your right by taking away another persons.

Going after Zimmerman doesn't do anything ... people should be going after that stupid SYG law.

This wasn't a SYG case. The difference, the defenders argued, was that Zimmerman never made an attempt to escape because he couldn't so this case had nothing to do with the SYG laws.

This was a pure self-defense case, which you may still have issues with obviously.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This wasn't a SYG case. The difference, the defenders argued, was that Zimmerman never made an attempt to escape because he couldn't so this case had nothing to do with the SYG laws.

This was a pure self-defense case, which you may still have issues with obviously.

Do have issues with it - don't believe Martin deserved to lose his life - pulling out the gun at the very least should of stopped the fight. Pulling the trigger was a bad move.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

More on the IT director being fired

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-defense-fired

Really interesting comments by Alan Dershowitz

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Arti...disbarred.html

Methinks the IT Director will be filing a quite substantial lawsuit.

I read the Dershowitz article, and while I normally consider him to be beneath reproach, he seems completely right about the actions of the State's Attorneys in this case.

But that law - the one that says that even when someone has a means and an opportunity of escape, that killing an assailant is still "self defense," I mean, it's not the sort of law that should be on the books in a civilized country. If that is the law, than no, Zimmerman is not technically guilty. And that fact alone should cause people to demand that the law be taken off the books.

With that said, I agree it was a simple self-defense case. The defense attorney even warned the prosecution that this is just a self-defense case, don't make it more than it is, don't turn it into a publicity stunt.

The prosecution did, and they lost.

[chemgear]

nm - not sure if I've ever seen that term before.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

For those that are more familiar with this case than I, I'm curious, did Zimmerman have a reasonable means of escape? Martin was on top of him pummelling him MMA style. Perhaps, and again I don't know, he had to use his firearm?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Do have issues with it - don't believe Martin deserved to lose his life - pulling out the gun at the very least should of stopped the fight. Pulling the trigger was a bad move.

Suppose he pulls out the gun but does not pull the trigger, and the physically stronger Martin overpowers Zimmerman and takes it from him. Would that be a worse move?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Suppose he pulls out the gun but does not pull the trigger, and the physically stronger Martin overpowers Zimmerman and takes it from him. Would that be a worse move?

touche!

[Hockey_Ninja]

Some of the reactions on twitter are just priceless. Overall both sides lost. Zimmerman will never be able to live a normal life and will be ridiculed everywhere he goes and a family lost a son. That's the way i see it.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bingo

So I'm assuming you thought the right decision was made in the OJ Simpson acquittal?