The Zimmerman Trial

[Lonestar]

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.

He doesn't teach self-defense courses. He teaches safety, familarity, and what possession of a CHP legally entitles you to in the state of Virginia.

[Colonâ„¢]

i recently enrolled in anger management therapy

[Berzerker]

Martin followed your advice, Lonestar

and if you attack people for asking what you're doing in their neighborhood, it aint self defense

[Docfeelgood]

Like I said in the other thread, people have been convicted on manslaughter for leaving their fence gates open and having a kid drown in their pool. If I drank and drive, and killed someone, it would be easy to get convicted on vehicular manslaughter.

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.




Yes, and? The reason for that is to avoid killing people unnessecarily.


You also just had to ignore that I began with "When I was 17", didn't you? Kids do stupid things. But they are ultimately kids.

Zimmerman? He's an adult.

In my experience it's that for most responsible gun owners, carrying firearms usually creates inhibative effect, and that Zimmerman decided to go off and play vigilante while carrying indicates he isn't a responsible gun owner. He was the adult, he was the CHP holder, and he decided to act in a irresponsible way, just as surely as if he had drank a fifth of bourbon and got behind the wheel of a car.

But I guess that admonition of yours doesn't apply to the guy carrying guns, huh?

nothing but pure speculation

[Docfeelgood]

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.

when is ignoring advise against the law

[Wiglaf]

What question about my reasoning did I not answer?

Let's start with this question you asked, which despite your compelling use of italics is what really reveals how little you respect legal facts:

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.

You keep making two mistakes, and they are evident in that statement:

(1) You assume that Zimmerman's decision to follow Trayvon is proximate to Zimmerman's decision to shoot Trayvon and
(2) Even assuming proximity, you assume that there was no intervening act by Trayvon that rendered Zimmerman's initial behavior legally inert

To deconstruct this further :

(1) You are correct that drinking and driving (and then hitting a pedestrian) is some form of manslaughter, and that drinking in and of itself is legal. But drinking and driving is legally proximate to driving recklessly and killing people -- that is to say, it is an objectively expected and foreseeable result to any reasonable person that by drinking and driving, you are creating an immediate grave risk to others. This is especially true because drinking and driving is well known to be very illegal, and an extreme danger.

Following a suspected criminal, which is what Zimmerman did, is not illegal, so we can throw that assumption of recklessness or extreme negligence out the window. So the question becomes, is the reasonably expected result of following a suspected criminal in public on the street that you will then jump and attack someone? Are you ignoring some legal duty by following such a suspect? Of course not -- and it doesn't matter what 911 or your stupid firearms instructor says. They are two very separate acts, with two different corresponding mental states..

To use an analogy, assuming you are still alive and have not committed sedoku in embarrassment by now: Would you say a police officer who follows a loitering individual to his car is creating a grave and immediate risk (a 10 on the 1-10 scale of risk) that loss of life will occur, where for comparison purposes drunk driving creates a risk of 10?

No. Therefore no proximity, no mansalughter, end of story.

(2) Even if we concede that somehow following a bystander on the sidewalk is criminal, or is somehow extremely reckless to the point of inviting loss of life (??), Zimmerman is untouchable if Trayvon then committed an intervening act of aggression. To use an analogy: if I set up a very dangerous pool where my kid is likely to die, and my kid gets in it but then shoots himself (or is shot by someone else), I am not in any way on the hook for manslaughter. Did I create a dangerous situation recklessly? Sure, but someone else did something to make it moot.

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?

He specifically said he was looking at the houses and had his hand in his waistband. If you are going to invent facts, and not even CHECK your facts, then there is no point to this discussion.

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.

So what? "Escalating the situation" is not a crime, nor does it mean anything in any legal sense.

[Lonestar]

He specifically said he was looking at the houses and had his hand in his waistband. If you are going to invent facts, and not even check your facts, then there is no point to this discussion.

You said:

"the rain and looking into houses."


At no point in his initial call did Zimmerman claim so. All he said was "he was looking about/at the houses". So, gonna repeat my question, when you walk somewhere do you just look straight ahead, or do you look at your surroundings?

So what? "Escalating the situation" is not a crime, nor does it mean anything in any legal sense.

It implies that the event wouldn't happen if he hadn't done so. His irresponsibility led directly to the act.

Let's start with this question you asked, which despite your compelling use of italics is what really reveals your ignorance of this particular legal topic:



You keep making two mistakes, and they are evident in that statement:

1) You assume that Zimmerman's decision to follow Trayvon is proximate to Trayvon's death and
2) Even assuming proximity, you assume that there was no intervening act by Trayvon that rendered Zimmerman's initial behavior legally inert

To deconstruct this further :

(1) You are correct that drinking and driving (and then hitting a pedestrian) is some form of manslaughter, and that drinking in and of itself is legal. But drinking and driving is legally proximate to driving recklessly and killing people -- that is to say, it is an objectively expected and foreseeable result to any reasonable person that by drinking and driving, you are creating an immediate grave risk to others. This is especially true because drinking and driving is well known to be very illegal, and an extreme danger.

Following a suspected criminal, which is what Zimmerman did, is not illegal, so we can throw that assumption of recklessness out the window. So the question becomes, is the reasonably expected result of following a suspected criminal in public on the street that you will be jumped and attacked? Of course not -- and it doesn't matter what 911 or your stupid firearms instructor says. Therefore no proximity, no mansalughter, end of story.

So, your argument is that no one could reasonably expect that a confrontation would arise between Martin and Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman went in there against the advice of the dispatcher and with the preconception that he was likely a criminal, based solely on "I didn't like that he looked at houses as he walked around"?

Baloney.

2) Even if we concede that somehow following a bystander on the sidewalk is criminal, or is somehow extremely reckless to the point of inviting loss of life (??), Zimmerman is untouchable if Trayvon then committed an intervening act of aggression. To use an analogy: if I set up a very dangerous pool where my kid is likely to die, and my kid gets in it but then shoots himself (or is shot by someone else), I am not in any way on the hook for manslaughter. Did I create a dangerous situation recklessly? Sure, but someone else did something to make it moot.

What if a neighborhood youth got into your pool, when you hadn't a posted notice or locked your fence? Aren't you legally on the hook for involuntary manslaughter then?

[Wiglaf]

So, your argument is that no one could reasonably expect that a confrontation would arise between Martin and Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman went in there against the advice of the dispatcher and with the preconception that he was likely a criminal, based solely on "I didn't like that he looked at houses as he walked around"?

Baloney.

It's not about whether a confrontation could be expected. I agree a confrontation could reasonably be expected. But confrontations are not illegal. The question is whether Zimmerman failed to perform some legal duty or performed some act to an extremely negligent or reckless level that could reasonably lead to death.

What if a neighborhood youth got into your pool, when you hadn't a posted notice or locked your fence? Aren't you legally on the hook for involuntary manslaughter then?

If he is trespassing, probably not, no. This can get to be a jurisdictional issue and would depend on a lot of specific other facts, though, like what exactly made my pool hazardous, how apparent it was, whether it was reasonable to assume my pool was open and safe, etc

[Guynemer]

Nothing Zimmerman did justified the attack on his person, and his response to the attack was reasonable given that he couldn't have possibly retreated and he was being threatened with lethal violence. It's self defense plain and simple.

Disagree. Being stalked in the middle in the night by someone you don't know would make you feel threatened. He instigated the violence.

[regexcellent]

Disagree. Being stalked in the middle in the night by someone you don't know would make you feel threatened. He instigated the violence.

As a legal matter, you are wrong.

[dannubis]

Do we have pics of Zimmerman at the time he was arrested / interviewed by the cops ?

I mean, if he was beaten within an inch of his life, sure we can see it on the police fotos ?

[dannubis]

And another thought: a guy gets out of his car and keeps on following you into a dark alley. You have a gun. What do you do ?

[Elok]

Do we have pics of Zimmerman at the time he was arrested / interviewed by the cops ?

I mean, if he was beaten within an inch of his life, sure we can see it on the police fotos ?

Jurors also heard Tuesday from Dr. Valerie Rao, a medical examiner in Jacksonville, Fla., who concluded after studying photos that Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries were “very insignificant” and “not life threatening,” and that scrapes on the back of his head could have come from just one strike against the sidewalk. Her testimony cast doubt on Mr. Zimmerman’s claim that Mr. Martin struck him repeatedly, banging his head on the pavement, causing him to fear for his life. But under cross-examination by Mark O’Mara, one of Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers, Dr. Rao conceded that Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries could have come from multiple blows.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/us/prosecutors-in-zimmerman-trial-ask-jury-to-disregard-comments.html?hp&_r=1&

So...maybe?

[regexcellent]

Do we have pics of Zimmerman at the time he was arrested / interviewed by the cops ?

I mean, if he was beaten within an inch of his life, sure we can see it on the police fotos ?

Yes, we do, and yes, we can! He wasn't beaten within an inch of his life but, and this has come up in the trial, the photos and forensic evidence clearly show that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman smacking his head against the sidewalk.

Amusingly, one of the expert witnesses called by the prosecution got thrown out of court by the judge, something that almost never happens. You pretty much have to be a huge quack. The dude was an FBI forensics guy and undoubtedly the judge decided his testimony was political.

[Sava]

Yes, we do, and yes, we can! He wasn't beaten within an inch of his life but, and this has come up in the trial, the photos and forensic evidence clearly show that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman smacking his head against the sidewalk.

The medical examiner testified that the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were not indicative of having his head slammed against the sidewalk.

So yeah.