The Glade 4.0

Listening to George scream in fear and pain for half a minute on the 911 call makes it seem like to me he felt it was pretty serious. His account might be exaggerated some, but listening to those screams I don't think he's exaggerating intentionally.

The thing is, George Zimmerman is going to be acquitted. Or at least it would be a great travesty of justice if he was convicted. And when he is acquitted...there will be trouble. I don't know if it will reach the level of the L.A. riots, but it will not be good.

And I think a lot of this is the fault of the media and the way they reported it, especially initially. Why wait for the facts to become more clear? Lets crucify him in the media and make all our judgments with no knowledge whatsoever.

I could be wrong. The acquittal of the police officers who beat King was a big shock, and I think by the end of the trial it won't be a surprise at all when he is acquitted, at least to anyone paying attention.

Aegnor - but then they get to report for a week on the riots! Win-Win!

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The second I'll grant is a possibility but I still dont see where you're getting the influenced by racial bias from. I dont see anything pointing to that but then again I'm not following this as closely as I had been. What I am positive of is that the media hugely played up the race angle and was exactly wrong on each point.

All of that is extraneous in any event. For me this comes down to whether or not he had justification to shoot the kid. I still dont know the answer to that. I think this is textbook on why guys like Zimmerman should not confront people like this. He reported it and that should have been the end of it. He didnt see any immediate threat from Martin. Kid wasnt breaking in or assaulting anyone. Sad all around.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Four things, really. First, and most importantly, I find it implausible that a guy with no history of violence would suddenly explode with sufficient rage to repeatedly bash a man's head into the concrete while saying "You're going to die tonight" and reaching for the "victim"'s gun. Sure, every violent criminal has his first violent crime, but there's almost always a pattern of escalation over time, starting with school fights, scuffles, etc. before they graduate to serious battery like this. Martin doesn't have that history. Second, we have the relatively minor injuries to Zimmerman. Yes, his nose was broken, which is consistent with a punch to the face. The "lacerations" on the back of his head, however, consisted of two cuts, one that was 1/4" long and one that was just under 1" long. I've had far more extensive "lacerations" from falling off my bike (hell, I've had shaving nicks that were longer than 1/4"), so I find it hard to reconcile the injuries he suffered with the supposed savagery of the attack he described. Incidentally, during the interrogations, the cops said the same thing, which is part of the reason some of them favored bringing charges long before this became a media storm.

Third, Zimmerman's story about what he himself was doing at that point seemed like a lie in the interrogation. In the first interrogation, he says he was chasing Martin on foot at a run. In the second interrogation he says he wasn't running after Martin, he was just trying to see what the address of the nearest house was. On the call with dispatch, he said he was just stepping out to the street to see where he was and then he was heading back to his car, so the cops could meet him there, then he changed his mind and asked them to call him back and he'd let them know where he was at that point. In the interrogation, he said he wasn't still looking for Martin, he was just trying to figure out where he was. Why not just walk directly back to his car and meet the cops there? You can here him stumbling and pausing in the interrogation, and it sounds like he's trying to come up with what to say rather than just recounting what happened, because if he was still looking for Martin, that puts him on shakier legal ground. If he's lying about that to cover his ***, seems likely he's also lying about the level of the violence involved. And fourth, it's just general human nature to exaggerate and recall events in the light most favorable to one's own position. Even if Zimmerman were trying to provide a balanced, dispassionate account of what happened (and he has every incentive not to do that), he'd have to be superhuman to not exaggerate in his own favor.


I'd buy this. Honestly, my overall impression of the guy is that of a wannabe-cop with a cowardly streak (I mean, those screams were pretty over the top), and I suspect that in his mind, he was being beaten to death by a madman juiced with Venom.


It's basically a combination of two things. First is the fact that all Zimmerman had to go on, and what he's stated as his own reasons for being suspicious - (i) that he didn't recognize Martin; (ii) that he had his hood up; (iii) that he was walking slowly in the rain; and (iv) that there had been recent break-ins in the neighborhood - are not enough, by themselves, to justify such suspicions. Literally all he saw was a guy with a hoodie walking in the rain a little more slowly than average. That's it. No way that's enough to warrant the kind of suspicion Zimmerman displayed. Second is the point I made earlier about study after study showing that people are, on average, predisposed to be suspicious of black people. Combine the two, and it seems quite likely that Zimmerman's level of suspicion was higher than it should have been partly because Martin was black. Hence, racial bias. Nothing you could ever prove in court, obviously, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion for out-of-court, armchair discussion purposes.[/quote]

This is a guy who is like... professionally suspicious. He's captain of a neighborhood watch. Called the cops a bunch of times, including this one. Make Martin hispanic, white or asian you dont think he's calling the cops?

Now make him 64 years old and female.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

It's quite possible Martin did. None of this will be admissible in court most likely, but there are sleuths that tracked down Martin's youtube account and his facebook, and found he had an interest in streetfighting type MMA stuff, and one of his youtube videos before being taken down showed his involvement in a street fight. Not exactly proof of anything, but to conclude that Trayvon had never had any history would seem to me to be as fault as a jump to conclusions that he did.



An investigator at the bond hearing did admit that the injuries to his head was consistent with his head being hit by something harder than it, which could include cement. IMO a couple of solid blows plus a lot of blows that didn't really land while George tried to resist would be enough for George to perceive his head being "bashed repeatedly". I've had my head banged enough to feel like it was "going to explode" and not look half as bad as George's.



It didn't seem like a lie to me as much as a struggle to remember events in the right order. Memory is funny like that.

It seemed to me George was willing to acknowledge that he followed until he was advised he didn't have to, then adamant that he'd stopped following. He said this more than once while being interviewed, one time having to correct himself because he'd almost forgotten it. So the part of the interrogation where the investigators started pushing that he had "never indicated that he was following" in their questioning seemed like they were forcing George to defend a position he didn't really take in order to try and trap him into confessing. That didn't seem fair to me.



He doesn't need justification for his suspicions, it's not illegal to be suspicious. You did leave out one detail though that George explained - He saw Martin in between the houses in the grass. That plus the rest makes the suspicion understandable IMO.

Jeralyn Merritt made another posting recently in regards to differences vs. inconsistencies that's a good read, that I find myself in agreement with. (She's put a ridiculous amount of analysis into the evidence, witness statements, as well as observations about Florida statues and case law.)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/22/143156/459

But anyways as the evidence has trickled out, I kinda figured for awhile that it would have been impossible for the State to get a conviction (Since they'd of course have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't act in self defense), but with this last round of statements, I've actually become convinced that he probably is "innocent" as opposed to "not guilty."

Still a tragedy and something that shouldn't have happened; but legally justified.

It doesn't matter how in danger Martin actually was. It's largely his perception at the time. I believe he reacted out of honest fear for his life at that moment in time. Maybe he's wimpier than you or I would be in that same situation but cowardice isn't criminal.

There can be doubt that he was in that position in manner that precluded him from using lawful deadly force, but that should be manslaughter and not murder then right?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

If he reasonably feared imminent serious bodily harm, he was justified to shoot. I don't see any way the state can prove he wasn't, considering the evidence.

IMO there is a good chance this gets dismissed before trial.

I would think so Coren. I keep thinking that there must be something in the body of evidence leading up to the shot that is leading the people trying this case to doubt what happened in those moments. Otherwise why go for murder 2? It seems the shoes never stop dropping in this case.

Either that or they are bowing to the mob. If so then we have the greatest legal travesty of our time.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

IMO what we have is a prosecutor who has a reputation for being harsh on minorities, who is up for reelection, trying to make nice so she doesn't get voted out. This is the same prosecutor who charged a 12 year old boy for 1st degree murder...meaning life with no parole.

Too many pronouns not sure who you mean when you say "I believe he reacted out of honest fear for his life at that moment in time."

Remember that Zimmerman was stalking Martin from in his car. Zimmerman also got out of the car and physically chased Martin for a time. Zimmerman was armed.

Given that, doesnt Martin have a right to defend himself, stand his ground? There's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He may well have done nothing criminal but he's the root cause. As for Martin he wasnt doing anything criminal to begin with. Did he really jump out and attack Zimmerman? Unclear, but again here's an older armed stranger stalking a teenager.

This is the worst case scenario. Stupidity and fear on both sides lead to an innocent kids death.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

It really is, Dash.

I was referring to Zimmerman, but both of them likely felt threatened and felt that their level of force was acceptable. Zimmerman can be, and likely is the "root cause" in following Martin, but that in and of itself probably isn't illegal and it certainly isn't Murder 2 illegal, unless you can prove that Zimmerman went out looking to cap a *****.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Legally though, he's not. Florida law says that "an aggressor is someone who initially provokes the use of physical force."

Provoking fear is not the test. And the provocation has to be contemporaneous with the victim's use of force against him. In order for Trayvon to have been justified in his use of non-deadly force against GZ, he had to reasonably fear an imminent attack by Zimmerman. He can't just have been afraid because he was unsure what Zimmerman up to.

But, even if the State *does* argue that his following Trayvon makes George the aggressor, George *still* doesn't lose the right to self defense due to Florida Statute 776.041, which alloows the aggressor to respond with deadly force to the victim's use of force against him, "if such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant."

Being pinned to the ground and unable to get away (corroborated by W6) would give George justification to fire there.



Agreed. The tragedy is already bad enough though with a death rather than add to it by throwing the book at the guy who looks like he lawfully defended himself.

I seem to recall that it's generally acceptable to actually initiate physical force if you feel threatened. Someone coming after me with a gun would sure as hell qualify.

Are we caring about this? I mean - I don't see how this matters.

I have felt threatened many times, and when I've felt that a physical confrontation is unavoidable, I always strike first (and hard, with no mercy... sir). I see no value in waiting until I am first attacked. It can be shocking to witnesses, but I have no desire to get my *** kicked, or worse.

Personally, I don't care what the law says in that regard. If I decide that I am in danger, I will act without first waiting for the government's permission. Whether or not Martin broke the law when he engaged Zimmerman is irrelevant. He can't be tried. What matters is whether Zimmerman broke the law for his part. It is not unreasonable to assume Martin believed he was defending himself despite what the law may say.

Nope. A feeling doesn't entitle you to ####. I can legally open carry my firearm, just because you feel threatened by that does not diminish the legality of my action. But you deciding you need to initiate physical force does mean I get to put a few new outputs in you. Besides, by all accounts Zimmermans firearm was concealed up to the moments before the shooting happened.

And if Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, why would he close distance and engage when he was unarmed?
And if the gun was brandished, why didn't Zimmerman shoot at the teen closing in on him?
And if the gun was already in Zimmermans hands, why was there marks on Martins knuckles rather than scrapes from a struggle for a firearm? Logic would dictate they would be both struggling for the weapon?

Really there isn't a scenario where Martin doesn't end up being the aggressor. I think the only reason Zimmerman is currently in custody, and that this isn't being dismissed immediately is because of all the race hustlers trying to make hay on it. Zimmerman will be held until this calms down, a few months maybe, and then quietly this will be dismissed. This is all about keeping riots from happening now.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

776.012

"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

So if you reasonably believe confrontation is unavoidable, by reasonably believing imminent use of unlawful force is about to be levied against you, yes you'd be justified in striking first.

Nothing in the evidence gives indication that Trayvon would have been justified in using force under that statute though. Even if you believe the friend he was on the phone with, she says that Trayvon asked "Why are you following me" and Zimmerman said "What are you doing around here?" which would mean 1) Trayvon initiated the verbal confrontation, and 2) Zimmerman's response is hardly indication of imminent assault.

Assuming it's true that Martin doubled-back after Zimmerman lost sight of him, there was a verbal exchange prior to the fight, and Martin threw the first punch (all of which seems likely, given what we know), then it's doubtful Martin could have relied on a self-defense excuse for his actions. However, just because Martin wouldn't qualify for self-defense doesn't mean Zimmerman does. Even if we assume that everything played out exactly as Zimmerman says it did, there's a reasonable argument to be made that he provoked the violence by following Martin (i.e. by creating a dangerous situation in which Martin reasonably feared for his own safety), in which case, he'd probably lose the ability to claim self-defense in most states. However, as Coren points out, Florida's statute allows even the instigator to claim self-defense if he's about to suffer death or great bodily harm and he's exhausted every other means of escape. That's a big part of what makes Florida's law so controversial - it allows a person to literally attack someone and then, if the actual victim fights back and starts winning , for the actual attacker to then kill the victim and claim self-defense. It's just a poorly written statute.

Keep in mind though, the Florida statute that might give Martin justification to punch Zimmerman only applies if the provocation is contemporaneous with the act of violence.

If everything played out as Zimmerman said, he was returning to his truck and no longer following, thus Zimmerman cannot be qualified as the aggressor.

Whether something is contemporaneous is kind of a gray area, I think. Also, would it have been obvious to Martin that Zimmerman was withdrawing, rather than continuing to look for him? I don't see how.

Usually when I see someone walking in the opposite direction I'm in or going, I assume they aren't looking for/following me. If I were afraid or concerned they were going to come back for me, I would take that oppurtunity to hide, look for help, get the Hell out of Dodge. Not do what Martin did and come after the person and start a physical altercation.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I don't see how. If he was no longer following, it's not contemporaneous.



Does it matter, with the location of the confrontation making it most likely that Martin approached Zimmerman?

Remember, Martin is under no legal obligation to either run or hide. He's free to stand his ground, and, given Zimmerman's behavior up to that point, it was reasonable for Martin to fear that as soon as Zimmerman spotted him again, Zimmerman would resume the pursuit for whatever purpose he had in mind (which Martin had to assume was not a friendly one). So, the 30-60 seconds that passed between when Zimmerman supposedly stopped chasing Martin and when Martin stepped out to confront Zimmerman aren't, in my opinion, sufficient to clearly change Zimmerman's status from aggressor/instigator to victim. The pursuit by Zimmerman and the confrontation by Martin seem contemporaneous to me.