Trayvon Martin case

[CF DolFan]

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he's up to no good… or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
 
 
How come everyone keeps overlooking this statement? It's raining out but this guy is just walking around, looking about?  This seems like Zimmerman clearly thougt he was "casing" the place or at a minimum being suspicious as the average person doesn't just meander around the neighborhood in the rain at night with no purpose.  This doesn't sound like someone traveling from point a to point b eating and drinking and trying to get to a destination.

Again ... it doesn't mean Martin is guilty (nor does it prove Zimmerman's assumtions were correct) of anything but it does show that Zimmerman related his call to "suspicious actions" and not Martin's race or his hoodie.  Which would make sense considering he would probably have to call on a third of the neighborhood based on those two characteristics.

[el diablo]

Just like you overlook the fact that Martin was on the phone at the time. At 7:00 on a Sunday.

[Phishfan]

You forgot to include what is coming out from the right too. Martin flipping off the camera...wrong kid( put out by Stormfront), the hacking of his accounts proving he is a drug dealer...wrong no proof of drug dealing( also done by a member of Stormfront). Martin came around SUV and ambushed Zimmerman...wrong, witnesses saw Martin hit Zimmerman and knock him down...wrong.

Both sides are engaged in it equally for various reasons. Hell I got into it with a member of the Brady Foundation blaming it all on guns, instead of the moron who did not listen to the dispatcher who said do not follow.

I forgot one (and I admitted there were likely more). The flipping off photo is the only one of these I knew of. I've followed this pretty closely and had not heard of any of the others.

[Phishfan]

Dave, you are letting your liberal biases (due to the liberal media) blind you.  Here is what really probably happened:

Exactly what Zimmerman said.

Somehow, I do not foresee that conservatives will continue this stance of "innocent, no trial necessary" for other persons suspected of potentially criminal acts.  What, you say that weed wasn't yours?  If the word of an innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen is good enough to prevent even being arrested for homicide (while you are literally standing with a smoking gun over an unarmed kid you admit killing), surely it must be good enough to avoid an arrest for something as trivial as marijuana.

...right?

Apparently, this incident has codified "I don't know how that got there" as a sturdy legal defense in the eyes of some.

Here is where you might be mistaken on our stances (at least mine) a bit. I am in no way saying the law does not need tweaking. What I am saying is that under the law as it is written and has to be enforced, the burden of proof needs to be that it was not self defense. It appears Florida is the only state with a stand your ground law that gives automatic immunity but Florida was also the first state to pass such a law so it is natural that others would make tweaks as they considered similar legislation.

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, my point is that even under the law, there is only a lack of probable cause if you accept everything Zimmerman said as fact, in the face of all the circumstantial evidence that contradicts it:

 - Why was Zimmerman outside his car several minutes after he had supposedly broken off pursuit?
 - Why would Martin have fled from Zimmerman and then circled back to ambush him?
 - Why was this significantly lighter unarmed minor a credible deadly threat?
 - Who was screaming for help on the 911 tape?

Ultimately, as I see it, this law rests on one key question: if I, as a private citizen, decide to detain you (even though I have witnessed no crime), and you resist this detainment with violent force, does the Stand Your Ground law permit me to use deadly force in response?

If the answer is no, Zimmerman should have been arrested.  I'm no prosecutor, so I don't know if there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction to that end, but there was certainly enough evidence for probable cause (which is a very low standard of proof).

[Dave Gray]

If I could write the law, I think that there should be two different standards.

I am much more in favor of allowing for use of deadly force when you're on your own property.  If someone breaks into your house, for example, I think that you are justified in assuming that they have weapons and will harm you.  If you kill someone under those circumstances, I'm willing to be very lenient with you.  Short of shooting someone in the back trying to retreat, I think that the law should favor the person "standing their ground".  I think that the concept of feeling threatened can be based on a reasonable assumption in that case.

For altercations not on your property, I don't like the word "threatened", because it's entirely subjective.  If Zimmerman can feel threatened by an unarmed minor, then anything goes.  You can never get into someone's head about whether they were truly threatened or not, therefore, you can claim self-defense in almost any situation.  I also am not comfortable with you claiming self-defense after you are the one who is the initial aggressor, even if the incident turns violent.  I think the law needs to ask you to make a reasonable attempt to retreat before lethal force.  I also like the wording about meeting force with equal force.
 
Can I go out and ask like an asshole, get myself into a fight, and then kill the guy who starts punching me?  If I'm understanding it correctly, the stand your ground law, as it's written now, allows you to do that.

[Phishfan]

Being outside the car is not evidence. Are you saying Zimmerman was required to remain in his vehicle.? That is stretching probable cause. As I said, I would like to know how far away Zimmerman was from the vehicle (I'm sure that will be evidence the grand jury hears).

If you or I would not circle back to to ambush Zimmerman, it doesn't mean someone else would not. Just because you cannot answer the questions does not make it evidence.

The minor was a credible threat if the injury reports are true. Martin was bleeding from the nose and back of the head (I'm sure the grand jury will also see more evidence on this than we have also). Witnesses say Matin on top of Zimmerman. Being unarmed has nothing to do with it. As the law is written you have to be in fear of your life or great bodily harm.

Zimmerman claims the screams were his. People saw Martin on top. At the original time, it makes sense. Now there are groups saying the voice analysis does not match Zimmerman. You may have something there, but it was not available at the time he was questioned about the incident.

I am not sure if you will find this interesting or not but the FL Supreme Court has upheld the Stand Your Ground Defense in other cases where the shooter "pursued" the shooting victim. Two guys had a drunken argument in a bar. Later that evening one of them was walking down the road when the other pulls up (as a passenger) in a car. The argument starts again. The walker leaned in the car window and was shot to death.

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, the combination of several pieces of circumstantial evidence provides probable cause.  That is essentially how probable cause works.

The many incident calls that Zimmerman had previously made are not, by themselves, probable cause.
Telling the 911 operator that he is following Martin is not, by itself, probable cause.
Being outside his car after he agreed to stop following Martin is not, by itself, probable cause.
Claiming that Martin ran away and then ambushed him is not, by itself, probable cause.
Cries for help on the 911 tape are not, by themselves, probable cause.

When taken in total, there is probable cause there.

[Dave Gray]

As I said, I would like to know how far away Zimmerman was from the vehicle (I'm sure that will be evidence the grand jury hears).

I saw on the news the other night, an ariel view of the neighborhood.  It showed where Zimmerman lived (not near the incident).  I also showed where Martin was staying, which was near where the body was found, but not where Zimmerman initially spotted Treyvon.  Treyvon likely entered the neighborhood through the main gate, where Zimmerman initially starting following him, or at a cut-through path for pedestrians.

Basically, Zimmerman saw Treyvon at the main gate, followed him around the corner.  When Treyvon went off the main street to walk back behind the houses, Zimmerman got off on foot and followed him behind the houses (or I think that according to Zimmerman, he drove past Treyvon and walked behind the houses to meet him in his face).  Treyvon's body was found roughly four or 5 houses down, but behind the house, not on the street side. 

I don't know how accurate this map is, but it gives you an idea.  I think the thing to take away from it is that they were not near Zimmerman's car at the time of the shooting.

[MaineDolFan]

I cannot help but feel a rather extreme sense of irony that in a sports-focused forum, I am being challenged on the claims that:

a) a 28-year-old is more likely to have reached maturity from a muscular standpoint, compared to a 17-year-old
b) a 250-pound man would generally have an advantage over a 140-pound man in a fight

Again, if you don't think either of these things are true, I await your explanation as to how this situation would be any different if a 140-pound woman were in Martin's place.

I think you would argue the color of the sky.  I'll lay this out one additional time.

A:  This might be a sports related forum.  We're not talking about sports.  We're not talking about a controlled atmosphere.

B:  We're not talking about a "fight" in the classic sense.  Two people square off, hands up, yes.  The larger person *generally* has an initial advantage.

C:  I've explained myself fairly thoroughly on the subject.  When a person feels in danger, or their life is threatened, they will react in a much different fashion than a general fight.  Having a much larger man following you, in the dark, would place a younger person into this mind set.

Anything further on this, really, is arguing just to argue.  I'm sharing an well rounded, very educated opinion on the matter.  You're overblowing size of the person in this type of situation.  Take this well rounded, very educated opinion for what it's worth.

I saw your Halloween picture.  You're a slender guy yourself.  I have plenty of colleagues / friends, what-have-you, right in your back yard.  My old stomping grounds.  If you would like a "real world" education rather than this worthless back and forth on a computer screen, let me know. I'll make a couple calls and set you up.  My dime.  You will learn, hands on*, why size doesn't matter.  At the end of the day I could call the sky "sky blue", but until you see it for yourself you'll continue to refer to it as "Brandeis."

*You would probably end up talking to Doshu, versus actually "doing" anything.  It would take all of five minutes of a conversation for you to understand what I've been trying to get across here.

[Dave Gray]

^ This is bullshit.

Size matters.

It is not the ONLY thing that matters, but it matters.

[Spider-Dan]

A:  This might be a sports related forum.  We're not talking about sports.  We're not talking about a controlled atmosphere.

And I'm not talking about any of those things; I'm saying that a 17-year-old is less mature, from a muscular standpoint, than a 28-year-old.  For further reference, look at any of the pro athletes we discuss on a regular basis, and their looks/muscle mass as a high school senior vs. as a 5th year pro.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "the size of the fight of in the dog" (which neither you nor I can comment on with anything remotely approaching informed accuracy).  It has to do with simple physical muscular development.

B:  We're not talking about a "fight" in the classic sense.  Two people square off, hands up, yes.  The larger person *generally* has an initial advantage.

C:  I've explained myself fairly thoroughly on the subject.  When a person feels in danger, or their life is threatened, they will react in a much different fashion than a general fight.  Having a much larger man following you, in the dark, would place a younger person into this mind set.

You still refuse to address the fact that your train of logic results in the conclusion that a woman would enjoy the same "advantages" you attribute to Martin in this conflict.

If, as you claim, age/size/weight doesn't matter and (in a non-controlled scenario) it's strictly about the "size of the fight in the dog," are you saying that a 200-pound adult male can credibly claim to have feared for his life when confronted by a 110-pound 15-year-old unarmed girl?  Answer the question.

I saw your Halloween picture.  You're a slender guy yourself.  I have plenty of colleagues / friends, what-have-you, right in your back yard.  My old stomping grounds.  If you would like a "real world" education rather than this worthless back and forth on a computer screen, let me know. I'll make a couple calls and set you up.  My dime.  You will learn, hands on*, why size doesn't matter.

Maine, I am interested in what point you could possibly hope to prove by this demonstration.  Are you trying to argue that you can find one of your semi-professional fighter buddies that's lighter than me, but could kick my ass?  If that's the case, I'm pretty sure I can pull many, many examples of the opposite: predictable examples of a much smaller guy getting beat up by someone bigger than him.  And I don't think I need to go to a dojo to do it.

You accuse me of arguing to argue, but consider your position: you specifically made a reply to me with the sole purpose of pointing out that you believe that (absent all other information) the person who is 100 pounds lighter should be favored in a fight, based solely on the fact that he chose fight over flight*.

I'm arguing the general rule.  You're arguing the exception.

*Given that it's plausible that Zimmerman was forcibly detaining him (and that this was the cause of the fight), your fight-or-flight argument becomes particularly ironic.

[CF DolFan]

^ This is bullshit.

Size matters.

It is not the ONLY thing that matters, but it matters.

So does speed, what they ate, their current health, whether they had sleep etc.  but it doesn't compare to experience. Are you guys purposely not reading what Maine is writing? I know Spider will argue regardless of what is written but I am very surprised that Dave doesn't get it. 

 

[Dave Gray]

I get what Maine is saying.  But I don't think that you can discount something like size and weight entirely.  It's not the only thing that matters in a fight, but other things being equal, size is a big factor.

Experience matters over all of those things, sure.

I'm not trying to be argumentative.  In fact, I don't think that Zimmerman's size advantage (though I do think it's an advantage) is all that relevant in this case.

[Spider-Dan]

So does speed, what they ate, their current health, whether they had sleep etc.  but it doesn't compare to experience.

...but we don't know the experience of either of them!  That's the point!

If Martin was a two-time All-Valley karate champion, it probably would have come out by now.  Likewise, if Zimmerman is a retired cage fighter, that also would have come out.  But we don't know any of those things.

What we DO know is that Zimmerman had a substantial weight advantage.  And for some reason, the people who are insistent that "size doesn't matter" are refusing to follow through and say that it still wouldn't matter if Martin were replaced with a girl.

Some consistency, please.