The Zimmerman Trial

[SlowwHand]

Zimmerman will walk. There won't be enough conclusive evidence to convict.

[regexcellent]

That is something everyone is in agreement with. Lonestar believes that there was enough evidence to convict him for manslaughter.

[SlowwHand]

Nope. If there was, they'd go ahead and go full forward. Maybe I'm wrong. It won't be the first time. This trial makes many statements.

[Lonestar]

That's a different crime called negligent homicide in most (all?) jurisdictions.

Or Involuntary Manslaughter

How about drinking and driving? Is that not Vehicular manslaughter in the great state of New York? Where you take actions that a create events that a reasonable man could see to leading to someone killed?

Carrying a gun and heading into a possible confrontation ABSOLUTELY is creating a scenario where a reasonable man could see it leading to someone getting killed.

Anyway I'm inclined to believe Wiglaf's view on what is or isn't manslaughter cause he's actually a lawyer.

The guy that has troll posts for most of his posts? Good source.

And there are people with law degrees that disagree with Wiglaf.

[Lonestar]

That is something everyone is in agreement with. Lonestar believes that there was enough evidence to convict him for manslaughter.

There absolutely is, it's just that the keystone cops are running the prosecution. By any stretch Zimmerman is the one that created the events that led to Martin's death, he is responsible for it, but the prosecution is doing its best to discredit itself with their witnesses.

[Wiglaf]

Baloney.

I'm going to repeat what I posted on the first page:

When I was 17, if I'd been walking through a secluded section of the city on a dark dreary night and someone was casing me from a car, and I turned down a side street unaccessible by car and the dude got out and started following me on foot, and I sped up and tried to lose the guy and he sped up too, at some point I would have rounded on him and beat the snot out of him. I also would have felt quite confident that I was acting in self defense and that the guy had gotten what he had coming.

I don't think I'm alone in this.

Also, if they tested my blood, they would have found some THC.

Yeah that's not what self defense is.

Because it's legal precedent that if you create the scenario where someone gets killed(intentional or not), thenyou can be charged and convicted of manslaughter.

Kind of depends on what you mean by "create the scenario." The way you are phrasing it is too nonspecific to have any meaning. What constitutes creating a scenario to you?

That's a different crime called negligent homicide in most (all?) jurisdictions.

It's not so clear cut. It would ordinarily be involuntary manslaughter if you leave your pool recklessly unsupervised and allow your kid to drown in it. It would ordinarily be negligent homicide if you negligently do the same. But this is sort of splitting hairs; it is not strictly semantics but it is not a very important (or unambiguous) distinction

[Lonestar]

Yeah that's not what self defense is.

Reasonable fear of bodily harm isn't self defense?

Kind of depends on what you mean by "create the scenario." The way you are phrasing it is too nonspecific to have any meaning. What constitutes creating a scenario to you?

We got to the point where Martin got shot because Zimmerman, against the advice of the dispatching officer, and (I would bet any amount of money on this) against the instructions of the person who instructed the CHP course he would have taken, had opted to follow someone while carrying a firearm. Despite not being able to articulate why Martin was "acting suspiciously"(which, as I'm sure you know, is distinct from "suspicious person"), which brings his situational awareness at the time into question.

[Wiglaf]

Reasonable fear of bodily harm isn't self defense?

It has to be objectively reasonable fear of imminent and severe bodily harm or death, and your response has to be proportional. Depending on the jurisdiction you may also have an obligation to defuse the situation by fleeing if that is an option. Simply being followed does not create a reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily injury of death, nor does it justify throwing a haymaker.

We got to the point where Martin got shot because Zimmerman, against the advice of the dispatching officer, and (I would be any amount fo money on this) against the instructions of the person who instructed the CHP course he would have taken, he opt to follow someone while carrying a firearm. Despite not being able to articulate why Martin was "acting suspiciously"(which, as I'm sure you know, is distinct form "suspicious person"), which brings his situational awareness at the time into question.

We also got in this position because Trayvon bought skittles and walked home while acting oddly in the rain...so did he not also create the situation?

[Lonestar]

We also got in this position because Trayvon bought skittles and walked home while acting oddly in the rain...so did he not also create the situation?

Some thoughts:

Zimmerman has not been able to articulate why he was "acting suspicously", this lends credence to claims that, to be generous, Zimmerman thought he was suspicious simply because he didn't recognize him. So it's hard to determine if he was "acting oddly" or Zimmerman just didn't like him.

It's very unlikely that any reasonable person could expect to be harrassed or confronted by a would-be vigilante while walking through a area he was legally able to, as in Martins case.

On the other hand, as any firearms instructor would tell you, bringing a gun with you into a potential confrontation is absolutely the worst possible thing you can do, from a legal stand point. The purpose of getting a CHP is in order to remove a threat from a confrontation you otherwise can't extricate yourself from, and Zimmerman did the complete opposite. It's possible that a Virginia DA would have stapled Zimmerman's balls to the wall over this. One of the guys I shoot with in the pink pistols teaches a CHP course, and he uses Zimmerman as a example of a irresponsible person who would probably get manslaughter under Virginia's criteria for lethal force. He did not avoid a confrontation despite carrying, he was advised against it by the dispatching officer, and the size difference between the two makes the "there was a disparity of force in favor of Martin" argument hard to swallow.

[Wiglaf]

Zimmerman has not been able to articulate why he was "acting suspicously",

Yes he has, have you not been paying attention to the trial? he was walking back and forth in the rain and looking into houses. we can neither disprove nor prove zimmerman's assertions, but he has little reason to lie.

It's very unlikely that any reasonable person could expect to be harrassed or confronted by a would-be vigilante while walking through a area he was legally able to, as in Martins case.

ok? doesn't matter

On the other hand, as any firearms instructor would tell you, bringing a gun with you into a potential confrontation is absolutely the worst possible thing you can do,

maybe

, from a legal stand point.

why would a firearms instructor be giving legal advice???

The purpose of getting a CHP is in order to remove a threat from a confrontation you otherwise can't extricate yourself from, and Zimmerman did the complete opposite.

CHP? huh? getting concealed carry in no way makes it illegal to follow someone, suspicious or not. whether you are carrying or not is irrelevant

One of the guys I shoot with in the pink pistols teaches a CHP course, and he uses Zimmerman as a example of a irresponsible person who would probably get manslaughter under Virginia's criteria for lethal force

is this person a lawyer? please post his credentials if so (this sounds like he is both not a lawyer, and an idiot). why are firearms instructors giving legal advice? why do you keep appealing to their authority instead of answering my questions about your reasoning?

He did not avoid a confrontation despite carrying,

it is not illegal to follow or even shout at an individual, especially if you deem them suspicious

he was advised against it by the dispatching officer,

not really. dispatch simply said he does not "need" zimmerman to follow trayvon . dispatch clarified on cross in trial that it never, as a matter of policy, orders anyone to do anything

and the size difference between the two makes the "there was a disparity of force in favor of Martin" argument hard to swallow.

trayvon was a big kid. zimmerman was only fat post-incarcertaion (for obvious stress reasons)

[regexcellent]

Most firearms instructors I've met have been stupid hacks. At least the self defense ones are. In any case, whether Zimmerman could have been smarter doesn't change whether or not he's guilty.

[Wiglaf]

i am assuming lonestars instructor friend is either letting his biases influence his unauthorized "legal advice", or is simply trying to scare people into never firing

[KrazyHorse]

Lonestard - check your facts. It is illegal for gays to own handguns therefore the pink pistols are a terrorist organization. And Zimmerman was only protecting his rights as a white Hispanic to yell at teenagers. If the price we pay for freedom is a couple of dead teenagers and a wounded hooker or two then George Washington's dream is alive and well.

[Wiglaf]

you are a terrible influence -- as i mentioned above i recently enrolled in anger management therapy and have been doing well so far. please exit the thread post hostumously,

[Lonestar]

Yes he has, have you not been paying attention to the trial? he was walking back and forth in the rain and looking into houses. we can neither disprove nor prove zimmerman's assertions, but he has little reason to lie.

Except he didn't claim that in his initial call. He said "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.", which doesn't really imply he was "looking into houses". Do you look straight ahead when you walk, or do you look at your surroundings?


And I'd say that facing murder charges, after the fact, he has a hell of a incentive to lie.

ok? doesn't matter

Sure it does. It's a hell of a lot less irresponsible to just walk then it is to follow someone with a gun.

maybe

Likely.

CHP? huh? getting concealed carry in no way makes it illegal to follow someone, suspicious or not. whether you are carrying or not is irrelevant

No, but you are knowingly potentially escalating the situation, which can get bad with you have a gun. If the person doing the mandated training for your CHP tells you it's irresponsible and dangerous to do that, it's reasonable to conclude that you know are escalating the situation by following someone with a gun.

why would a firearms instructor be giving legal advice??? is this person a lawyer? please post his credentials if so (this sounds like he is both not a lawyer, and an idiot). why are firearms instructors giving legal advice?

Probably because part of the CHP/CCW process in many states is to inform the prospective CHP holders what you can and cannnot do thanks to local and state laws.

why do you keep appealing to their authority instead of answering my questions about your reasoning?

What question about my reasoning did I not answer?

it is not illegal to follow or even shout at an individual, especially if you deem them suspicious

That doesn't matter. It isn't illegal for me to drink either, but if I drink and drive and hit someone, I can certainly be charged and convicted for vehicular manslaughter.

Zimmerman almost certainly was advised during his state-mandated CCW training to not seek out potential confrontations while armed. He had a state-sanctioned authority tell him so. He was acting incredibly irresponsible. So it's easy to establish that he knew(at least as far as the state of Florida is concerned) that that was big stupid, irresponsible move on his part. He had to have known he was potentially going to kill someone by seeking out a confrontation like this.

Now, I don't think that's murder 2(there's no way to know if he intended to shoot Martin, but I'd say "no"), but it's certainly involuntary manslaughter.

not really. dispatch simply said he does not "need" zimmerman to follow trayvon . dispatch clarified on cross in trial that it never, as a matter of policy, orders anyone to do anything

You'll notice that not once in this thread or the other have I said that the dispatch "ordered" Zimmerman. I always used "advised".

trayvon was a big kid. zimmerman was only fat post-incarcertaion (for obvious stress reasons)

Fair enough.