Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets
theodp writes "The NY Times reports a judge in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman has ruled that Trayvon Martin's school and social media records should be provided to the defense. Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case. In those instances, showing whether a victim 'had an alleged propensity to violence' or aggression is germane, the judge said. The defense also got permission for access to the social media postings of a Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting. Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
Nope, I'm staying outta this one. Just keep walking, everyone.
This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.
This is definately a "blame the victim" move... Pretty low for the courts.
I don't see what good it would do? Unless the kid was bragging about breaking into houses or getting into fights, there's not much gonna clear the guy. In fact, if the kid tweets about being followed once before, even if he's upset about it, then it's only going to backfire.
Tweeting, and posting on facebook or other social sites are forms of speech, speech is protected by the first amendment but that said it can also be used against you in any court of law. 'Anything you say can and will be used against you' so I think the current miranda rights cover that.
So nothing really ground breaking here as far as I'm concerned.
As in; "Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
The last time this case was featured, we got some pretty damn detailed descriptions about how the brave vigilante Zimmerman shot a 100 pounds lighter unarmed criminal in desperate self-defence, or how the helpless kid Martin was brutally murdered by a psychotic racist pursuing him for wearing a hoodie. So, any bets on how this round of defending one's position on an issue one can't possibly have any informed opinion about by making shit up goes?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Zimmerman, not Martin, is the accused here so of course he should be entitled to what ever exculpatory evidence he can find. If the "Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting" wanted her social media postings protected on 5th amendment grounds and the court found that they weren't protected there might be a story here, but the summary at least doesn't hint at that.
"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
Consider: A protected twitter account, a twitter account that is public, a posting on Facebook that is restricted to certain friends, a posting that is open to friends of friends, your school records, your medical records. In each instance, there is a varying degree of privacy expected. That degree of privacy ought to be the measure of how a court accesses the information, rather than the medium the information is stored in.
Okay so you say "Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"' And FTFH "Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case." Miranda is for the accused. Basically your snide comment makes your headline look dumb.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?
Sorry but courts allow emails to be introduced as evidence so long as authenticity can be established. Why shouldn't this hold true for tweets and facebook posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with Miranda.
WTF! Trayvon is dead. Why would the cops give him a Miranda warning?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Many of you seem to forget that Martin is a "victim" in this case and the Miranda warnings are for the defendant. If Martin has a history of tweeting violence, break-ins, hating Mexicans or whatever then these are valid things to bring up by the Zimmerman defense team. On the other side of the coin, if Zimmerman had postings saying he hated black people then they would pretty much lock up a wrongful death case for the Martin family.
Because clearly that Zimmerman psycho knew all about some kid's online comment history when he harassed and shot him.
The defense lawyers and the judge need to be thrown in jail along with him.
Zimmerman psyco, great just great, let's just go with the medias assertation and just convict him without a fair trial.
I personally don't know if he is actually psycho or what, but let's not go with the retarded Mob mentality
Funny how the media that vilified a Mexican man and left out important information on purpose to skewer their point, but they put their fucking blinders on when multiple groups of black men all over the country went out and killed many non black men and boys...
All I'm saying weather he is guilty or not, all people in the USA deserve a fair trial no matter your color.
It doesn't mean he took the tweets into account when shooting him. It may mean that he saw that Martin was violent (for reasons other than the tweets) and that's why he shot him, but the tweets independently confirm that he was violent.
I'm surprised that the comments here seem to lean toward supporting the Martin side of the story instead of the Zimmerman side. If Zimmerman just wanted to shoot Martin, why did he get in to a physical altercation first? Why did he call 911? Can we at least give Zimmerman a chance to state his case? Isn't it possible, even probable, that Martin attacked Zimmerman after being followed?
The first verdict in this thread came from some "other" AC....
All public tweets are archived in the Library of Congress, so why not...
You're hysterical, and hilariously stupid. Firstly, get a grip. Secondly, get a clue about how your legal system works. Thirdly, acquire a shred of understanding about the case.
After you have done this, you may be able to contribute something constructive that does not make you look like a nincompoop. Not before, after.
Why should they need to have prior knowledge?
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
Or other FPSs? Because if he did I sure hope for justice's sake he didn't tweet about it.
He shot and killed a man. He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.
How is that not murder?
I really wish there was a mod option "Dumbass" as that's the only fitting description I can think of for your post.
The prosecution will make an issue during their case (and the media has tried this plenty) that Trayvon just wasn't an aggressive person, he wouldn't have started a fight as stated by the defendant, he doesn't have any history of violence or aggressive behavior. The defense has every right to disprove that notion especially if proof exists to counter that claim, the proof in this case comes in the form of Facebook, Twitter and school records. The point isn't that Zimmerman knew about the postings and records before hand but that the postings and records prove a history of aggressive behavior on Trayvons part.
If you can't figure that out then it would seem my desire to mod this post "Dumbass" has merit.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
In 1912, instant messaging meant sending a telegram or mailing a postcard. "Ten words or less." In 2012, you tweet. That changes nothing. Evidence that is relevant to an issue in dispute is admissible unless there is a compelling legal reason to exclude it.
A Miranda warning is required only when you are about to be interrogated by the police, with damn few exceptions, what you expose to others has always been fair game.
Mr. Martin is not on trial. He's dead. Mr. Zimmerman is on trial. If the prosecution could find any "Tweets" or FaceBook postings of his that they could use against him the court would permit it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
you KNOW that's not why they're doing it. If this were the case, half of court cases would have the lawyers looking through victims' internet history. They're only doing it in this case because widely-publicized stories always lead to biased rulings, and they want to look for any and every angry comment or argument the kid's ever made online to give him a negative image.
You aren't going to see the defense showing any tweets like "brb gonna go beat up this neighborhood watch guy" or "lol gonna rob a store without a gun" or anything that would indicate that Trayvon had bad intentions the night he was killed. Instead you're only going to see negative comments he made on completely irrelevant things like youtube videos or on somebody's facebook wall weeks or months prior to his murder.
He shot and killed a man.
True.
He deliberately went out with a weapon
True. It's legal in Florida.
to kill someone.
Not True.
How is that not murder?
You're not seeing the difference between homicide and murder. He admits killing Martin, but - as the law allows - says it was in self-defense.
He deliberately went out with a weapon to defend himself in case he was attacked.
How is that not self defense?
kid in a neighborhood he does not live in, that has had breakin problems, acting suspiciously...
All that screams to me they might be upto something. And if MY family lives here. I damm well am very interested in stopping this person so the police can talk to them. And if that person attacks me... I damm well am going to shoot them.
And then you have his online activity as revealed by so many people.. The kid was a stupid thug wannabe. I wouldnt put it past him to have been the one responsible for breakins in the area. he was no saint. kid or not.
Everyone pretends this is just all a huge mistake because it was a kid. and he was *gasp* black!
but guess what. black kids can be criminals too. and sometimes bad things happen to criminals.
Only for people of color...
I'm not defending the kid but, wouldn't shooting an unarmed man (or boy) be responding with "excessive force"? They threw stones so I shot them is not a valid defense.
Fact, the young man (17 years old) was shot in the back
Nope, shot in the chest, from the front
and the evidence suggests he was shot at some distance, apparently trying to run for his life.
Nope. Estimated distance was 24 to 36 inches, about arms length for someone his height.
Their has never been a single bit of corroborating evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was in any way assaulted.
Nope. His face and head showed signs of a severe beating and Martin's knuckles were bruised in a way consistent with punching someone in the face and head.
It you attack a cop with stones or a knife or even your hands, it is not excessive force for them to shoot you. Why should it be any different for the public?
Well, in Florida you are allowed to use deadly force against a person if you feel threatened and are in a place you have a right to be. Unfortunately both people in this case can make that claim since they were both allowed to be where they were...
After seeing so many comments on Miranda rights, I couldn't help drop this link: http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda/
I think it pretty well shows that Miranda warnings aren't what they used to be, if they are anything at all.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
was shot in the back
Nope.
and the evidence suggests he was shot at some distance
Nope.
no injury to the face and no blood on his clothing
Nope.
The young man had no history of violence
Nope.
to which he replied,"No way, he'll get away, I'm handling this."
Nope.
Any other bullshit you'd like to spew? Perhaps you'd like to post the ancient picture of an 11-year old Martin? Or maybe you'd like to Photoshop Zimmerman, make him look a bit more Caucasian, hey?
Only if you believe it's impossible for an unarmed man (or boy) to kill you or do serious bodily harm to you. Since there are plenty of examples of that happening, I'd say no, defending yourself with a gun against someone attacking you with their body is not excessive force.
Because officers are given firearms training, as well as training in the use of non-lethal self-defense?
Look at it this way: If you got in a fist fight with someone, would you want them to pull a gun on you, kill you, and get away?
thatescalatedquickly.jpg
Are user-deleted tweets retained for a period of time on Twitter's severs? Perhaps indefinitely?
Hey, let's all form opinions and argue without having the proper evidence, or in most cases, any legal knowledge of what is up in court.
Aaaaannd... GO!
If they exist, you sure would. You do realize that the "defense" in this case refers to George Zimmerman's legal team, defending him against the charge of 2nd degree murder - of which he is innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... right?
If those tweets exist, they'd certainly be used. Just like if Zimmerman tweeted, "BRB GONNA GO MURDER A BLACK KID IN A HOODIE," the prosecution would be waving those around as well. In both cases, neither Zimmerman nor Martin were quite so obvious about their intentions. And in both cases, the opposing legal teams will seek to use past incidents, statements, and character witnesses to support their point.
The defense will try to cast doubt on the charge of 2nd degree murder by showing that Martin was a violent, antisocial kid who had a habit and a history of getting in fights and behaving violently. This would support Zimmerman's story that he was assaulted by Martin.
The prosecution will try to show that Zimmerman has a long history of racism, harrassment of minorities, and irresponsible gun handling, in order to make the idea that he assaulted Martin and then shot him for no reason other than that he was a black kid walking around the neighborhood.
If Martin has many incidents of fighting and run-ins with the cops and school authorities, and Zimmerman has a pretty clean history, then that pattern of behavior would support Zimmerman's claims. If Martin, on the other hand, is pretty much a choirboy, and Zimmerman has a long history of harassing minorities in his neighborhood, that would cast a lot of doubt on his "self defense" claims.
Yeah, like the persona a 17 year old black might create on the internet for the consumption of his friends and peers would never be exaggerated or puffed up to give himself greater street creed. This is like the poor guy that spent 20 years in jail because he lived in the same greater neighborhood as a girl that was murdered and he was caught drawing zombies and gore in his junior high home room. Kids do stupid things, its part of the growing up process, its why driving insurance for a 17 year old is astronomical. None that justifies hunting them down and executing them.
When the defense claims self defense, violent tendencies of both the accused and the dead victim are always relevant evidence. Zimmerman cannot be forced to testify about his own tendencies, and obviously Trayvon is dead and won't be testifying. But other evidence is fair game. Since Zimmerman claims self-defense, you can expect that the state will use any evidence of violence in Z's past against him.
This is only controversial because people aren't aware of what usually goes on in trials.
A fist fight can easily end in the death of one of the parties. If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
Non-lethal self defense training or not, you pull a knife and get close to an officer, you're getting shot and rightfully so.
"I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech."
Correct.
Some prior statements are relevant only if the shooter knew about them. But not all such statements.
How many other "facts" do you want to make up? Your entire post reads like a fantasy novel and takes away any bit of credibility you might have had. Shit, you even made up the supposed direct quotes from him you use.
You're drawing big assumptions not supported by facts. Actually, the facts that have recently come out regarding Trayvon's behavior indicate the exact opposite of what you attempt to put forth.
Regardless, I'm waiting for everything to come out, unlike most other people who are working their agenda.
exactly. if we can agree it's not reasonable to patent something just because "it's on the internet" then it's also not news worthy just because it's "on the internet".
Seems fair to me. Use all social media comments as required. I'd never speed, burgle, assault or defraud anyone. Ever, ever, ever. And you can tell that to the judge! Please do!
So I fail to see how they are relevant to the situation where he killed this kid.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
In the same way invading Iraq wasn't self defence. You can call it a defence department, you can make up all the shit you want about being for 'deterrence', or weapons of mass destruction or the like. But that doesn't make it defence.
The Zimmerman/Martin thing is harder to figure out, it's possible the KID was acting in self defence, thinking some joker was following him and took pre-emptive action and got himself shot (hence the wounds on zimmermans head) it's possible he was a bad kid trying to assault someone, it's possible zimmerman is just a nutter allowed to own a gun and finally decided now was his chance. Honestly, I have no fucking clue. It's he said vs the dead guy + whatever physical evidence they have. That's not a strong case for anything. That doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't decide this was his chance to be a vigilante hero - but that's hard to prove, and it's harder to know what the dead guy was thinking, given that he's well, dead, but the burden of proof either way is going to be tough, because Zimmerman, even if he was the most honest person in the world, doesn't know what Martin thought he was up to.
And of course, to go back to my military analogy. How is Iran wanting nuclear weapons not self defence? This is the problem, when you let people carry guns everyone who might get into a dangerous situation has to assume the other guy might have a gun and might use it, and then your country starts to look a lot like tribal pakistan or Yeman.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'? Although I am assuming (hopefully correctly) that the above is in jest, It seems obvious to me that it would be the case without needing any clarification on the matter specifically when a person's character is to be determined. Anything you say means just that, not just in front of an officer. This is a touchy case for a lot of reasons, although I am in favor of prosecution from my limited knowledge of the case just on him being told not to follow the suspect any longer. Had he simply done that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Fact is, social media postings and school/work/ect records are used all the time, the only difference is this case is all over the media.
On the internet everybody is a bigger mouth than in reality. I know quite a few people which have semi "violent" forums post, but are cowards in real life. Saying that facebook post shows a history of violence is utterly bullshit. A history of violence is when you bully others, steal, go into a lot of fight. Facebook post are for poseur. If this is used as defense than it is utter bullshit. I hope the prosecutor make sure to check trayvon in real life to show such "history of violence" from facebook psot for the bull it is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And Zimmerman had knowledge of any of this prior to the shooting how?
What in the world does Miranda have to do with this case? Does everyone understand that the term "Miranda" refers to a specific Supreme Court case that dealt with the rights of persons who were placed under arrest, and where prosecutors wanted to bring their statements to the police as evidence against them into the case? Miranda has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the statements of a deceased person who was never arrested and who is not facing prosecution. The ONLY person who could raise a Miranda issue in this case would be Zimmerman's attorney, on behalf of his client. C'mon people - don't be completely ignorant of the basics of the law - it will only hurt your chances for success in life.
You are correct, in fact it all comes down to something none of us can know and that is who initiated the confrontation.
If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
That's what the judge told me back in high school. ``You can't fight back unless your life is in danger! Here is a 400$ fine, don't do it again.''
from white computer nerds? Color me surprised.
(1) this is an unusual, though not unheard of, use of what is rule 404. However, it opens up the chance of a mistrial and appeal.
(2) it also means the defense has opened the door to 404(a)(2)(B)(ii):
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may: (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Is still public data, regardless of what 'medium' its in, and is admissible if its relevant.
Dont want it in court someday, dont blab it everywhere to everyone.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You had a shitty lawyer, would have been easy to argue that you were afraid for your life, that is unless you decided to throw the first punch.
its not an assasination if its all true and the kid was scum.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Actually even that doesn't matter. There have been cases where someone initiated a confrontation, only for it to have been escalated and finished with deadly force by the defendant, who got off because Florida's law doesn't care about provocation. These cases all come down to the witnesses, and right now we only have one. Regardless of whether or not the law is good/just or Zimmerman deserves to walk, he likely will because of a lack of evidence and/or legal vagueness.
But since defending yourself with your body against someone attacking you with a gun is also not excessive force, there's a bit of a problem here. Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened by Zimmerman. So, you have two people committing an act of self-defence against each other. So, then you have to ask how the heck this situation happened and could it have been foreseen. I think that a violent confrontation is a foreseeable consequence of hunting someone against police advice. So, when someone dies as a result of foreseeable consequences and their own negligence, it's generally considered to be at least manslaughter.
Miranda has nothing to do with this, it guarantees the rights of the defendant/accused, not the victim, and that's how it should be.
it's possible he was a bad kid trying to assault someone,
Even based on Zimmerman's version of events that's not very likely. Or at least not very likely in the particular situation that led to Martin's death.
If that "unarmed man (or boy)" has a rock, he's not unarmed. A rock can (and has, and will no doubt again) kill if thrown with sufficient force and aim. 17 year old boys routinely throw baseballs at a very small target in the range of 50- to 80-miles per hour (see: Little League, pitching), it's not all that difficult to throw a similarly sized rock over shorter distances with a lot of accuracy.
Now, somebody throwing a single rock, and it clattering harmlessly down the sidewalk behind me because they missed me, certainly shooting them in response would be a questionable decision. But what's been alleged by Mr. Zimmerman is that Mr. Martin jumped on him, and began slamming his head into the concrete slab of the sidewalk. In that case, again, it would be very easy to kill someone, and shooting someone who seems to be trying to kill you by splitting your head open on the sidewalk doesn't seem that excessive to me.
Why don't you explain to us why you think it *is* excessive? Assuming that you are Zimmerman, and somebody is slamming your head into the sidewalk - how do you defend yourself? What's your strategy?
Well, Zimmerman admitted to chasing Martin, so I think we can be pretty certain who initiated the confrontation. He was carrying a gun and, when Martin approached him, I'm pretty certain Zimmerman's story is that he turned away from Martin and went for his phone. If Martin saw that he was carrying a gun, which is very likely given the clothing Zimmerman was wearing, he would have had very good reason to think that Zimmerman was going for his gun.
He shot and killed a man.
True.
He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.
False. You're attributing intent where none has been proven. Carrying a gun does not equal intent to kill anymore than wearing your seat belt indicates an intention to get into a car wreck.
How is that not murder?
See above.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Which is immaterial to whether the defense should be able to look at it for potential use. You're talking about prior restraint because they might use it in a particular way even though there are legitimate reasons to investigate it for use.
That he didn't is actually pertinent to the defense... so, what was your point? If Zimmerman had known about Martin's social media persona, it would lend credence to the argument that he profiled and stalked the young man.
'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
This goes without saying when you're communicating in a place where there is no expectation of privacy.
While you're at it, why don't we add "shooting yourself in the head with gun could be fatal" and "consumption of raw plutonium could have serious health consequences"...
Twin or more? ITA
Apache/Spring/La
Zimmerman was told to de-escalate the situation by the 911 operator by staying in his vehicle and instead he decided to escalate. That's murder.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Under Suspicion (released 2000) has a couple scenes well before its time, around how online activity can haunt you later.
I'll try not to give spoilers, but in one scene, they present Internet history and email logs.
Given the year, and admittedly my niavity about what was a mainstream technology that was only 5-6 years old(note mainstream), the scene was a wake up call for me.
It stood me in good stead when social media came along. Post like your are writing to the Editor and your real name will be published.
The film stars Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman. Two of my favorite actors to boot.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Possibly.
The legal standard in most states for the use of deadly force is belief of imminent severe bodily injury or death. Essentially, would a reasonable person believe they might die or be severely injured and that use of deadly force would prevent it? States differ on what other avenues must be attempted prior to the use of deadly force, such as trying to run away, etc.
You can die in a fist fight. You can certainly sustain severe bodily injury.
There's another issue here. In most states, the initiator of the use or threat of force can't claim self defense. So if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
And thirdly, there's the difference between what's moral and legal. There are probably situations where I'd think the person's choice to shoot was morally despicable but should be legal under the general principles of self defense.
" 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?" Trayvon Martin is not a defendant in any proceedings Tweets and posts are not being used to put him in any legal jeopardy. What they will be used for is to paint a picture of who he was. Heaven forbid that the jury actually have a picture of Trayvon Martin close to what he really was instead of what the prosecution wants you to think he was.
That kind of thing happened recently here in the Pittsburgh area.
The details that we know at the moment are that one man backed his vehicle into the other man's vehicle. They began to argue. The man whose vehicle was struck punched the other man in the face. The man who was struck in the face pulled a firearm and shot the attacker, killing him.
The shooter is sitting in jail awaiting arraignment while the investigation continues.
If the story that the witnesses told checks out, I suspect that this shooter will be freed.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If someone has a gun and you don't, attacking him is the last thing you will do, unless you are corned and cannot run away. Unless Zimmerman actually pulled his gun at Martin and put him in a situation where he couldn't possibly escape, or escape were unlikely, before firing at him, Martin had no logical reason to attack him if he knew he had a gun. More likely than not Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was unaware he had a gun and if Zimmerman didn't had a gun he could easily be the one dead or at least severely injured.
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
Zimmerman could have been charged with harassment and or stalking
"Street cred" seems to be synonymous with acting like a thug and being proud about it, so perhaps it's time to destroy altogether all the "giving themselves street-cred" thugs.
"Kids do stupid things, its part of the growing up process"
And some kids get themselves killed while bashing other people's brains out, it's part of the Darwinian natural selection process. Parents, stop your kids from bashing people's brains out in order to give themselves street cred.
"None that justifies hunting them down and executing them."
No, but somehow it doesn't justify those kids from murdering neighborhood watch guys either. Nor are those neighborhood watch guys forced to let themselves be murdered.
Zimmerman admitted he followed, not chased, Martin. The confrontation happened next to Zimmerman's car sometime after he had returned to it and made another phone call. Zimmerman's story has always been that Martin approached him and started the physical altercation. If the fight had started away from the car I would have doubts, but given where and when it happened it's clear to me that Martin approached Zimmerman.
And you can cite the Florida law requiring persons to obey the instructions of 911 operators, and which further provide that self-defense is rules out if that law is broken?
I don't know that Martin felt his life was threatened. He might simply have been annoyed at being followed and decided to beat the snot out of Zimmerman to teach him a lesson. That's what Zimmerman claims, anyway.
This is definitely not mutual self defense. There was a time when no one was doing anything wrong. Martin's certainly free to walk around the neighborhood, harming no one. Zimmerman's certainly free to watch him, and even ask him what he's doing, though Martin's free to tell him to f*ck off. At some point, someone escalated to violence first, unless there was something really bizarre like Martin starting to take a swing at the exact moment Zimmerman pulled his gun. Whoever changed this into a violent confrontation has no legit self defense claim.
"Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense"
Enjoy extinction. I agree, dumbest shit I've ever read on Slashdot.
Zimmerman was told to de-escalate the situation by the 911 operator by staying in his vehicle and instead he decided to escalate. That's murder.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin after he got out of his car. Zimmerman then said he was on his way back to the car. A suggestion or an order from a dispatcher is not the same as an order from a police officer. Even Sanford PD admitted as much. Zimmerman's claim has always been that he only got out of the car to give the dispatcher the best information on the location of Martin.
You think Zimmerman was acting in a predatory fashion while he was actively on the phone with the police?? Did you listen to the tapes? Won't you at least give the man the benefit of the doubt and let the evidence come out for the jury to hear?
No it is not. He had the legal right to ignore the 911 operator and get out of his vehicle. Even if it may be considered a stupid move it was still within his rights.
Yes yes, we all know teenagers are EXACTLY who they pretend to be on Facebook. No one ever exaggerates or role-plays online.
Just look at the posts on this thread: all the self-righteous self-defenders who talk so goddamn tough about how they've trained to Rambo their way out of any conflict. There was a reply post a few weeks ago about some kid who was bullied so badly that he now has an arsenal of guns and makes his own body armor, or rather that's what he claims because, y'know, internet.
The defense should have access to this data, but any rational person knows it's a kid pretending to be bad ass. Now, getting thrown out of school for starting fights is more accurate, tangible info compared to web bragging from an overinflated sense of self-worth: aka, teenagers.
This is a good example that anything you say online is fair game, and is eternal. Same goes for pictures and dumb youtube videos. I kinda feel bad for all the young girls who post risque vids of themselves the end up on porn aggregators, that shit's out there forever. Note: I said "kinda", I'd also like to thank them from the bottom of my .. uh .. heart.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The prosecution will try to show that Zimmerman has a long history of racism, harrassment of minorities, and irresponsible gun handling, in order to make the idea that he assaulted Martin and then shot him for no reason other than that he was a black kid walking around the neighborhood.
They will try to show that if they can, but the judge probably won't allow it as it will be prejudicial.
OK, somebody needs to start "the drunk guy project". Purpose: to post dirt on EVERYBODY, if necessary using Photoshop. Thus we will return to the previous state of affairs in which it was assumed, but not actually proven, that most people occasionally do stupid things.
Either that, or some forward thinking company needs to make a statement of policy that anything you do, or say on social media won't be used against you when hiring as long as it isn't a felony for which the statute of liminations hasn't run. FaceBook: I'm looking at you.
911 operators do not have the legal authority to direct an individual to do anything. While he may have had the opportunity to de-escalate, that alone does not make this homicide a murder. This is especially true in Florida where there is no requirment to retreat. No 911 operator can have the visability needed to make these decisions.
Zimmerman was told to de-escalate the situation by the 911 operator by staying in his vehicle and instead he decided to escalate. That's murder.
Are you a lawyer or other legal expert, or just some guy making stuff up?
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I am a guy who has taken self-defense classes and read extensively on the subject. My understanding of the law is that a so-called "reasonable man doctrine" is applied. If a reasonable man, knowing what the defendent did, would find the defendent's actions to be reasonable, then it won't be found to be murder.
Would a reasonable man expect that getting out of a car would escalate to a fatal shooting? If so, your legal theory might hold water. My guess is that no, the court will not find that getting out of a car turns self-defense into murder.
Especially because I'm pretty sure that the 911 operator didn't say "We are worried that if you get out of the car, the situation will escalate to the point where someone dies. If you get out of the car, someone will die." The 911 operator said something more like "okay we have enough for now, stay away from the guy".
A different example: if I walk into a bar, and get into a shouting match with another drunk guy, and I yell "let's take this outside" and we both go outside and start fighting, and then the other drunk guy starts slamming my head into the sidewalk... then if I shoot him, I will be found to have materially contributed to the bad situation. I wasn't just randomly in danger, I actively contributed to the situation, and a reasonable man would not find my actions to be reasonable.
This case is not open and shut... I concede that if Zimmerman had not exited his vehicle that the shooting might not have happened. I just don't buy the theory that exiting the car was enough to make this a slam-dunk murder case.
But I am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
He was told no such thing, and even if he had, direction from the dispatcher is not binding. The narrative as evidenced by the actual 911 tape is that Zimmerman was already out of his car and attempting to locate Martin by the time he was told by the dispatcher that they did not "need [him] to do that". At that point, deescalation was likely impossible, even if the dispatcher's "order" had been clear and binding -- and, again, it was neither.
To be clear: Zimmerman was profoundly stupid to get out of his car at all, regardless of any advice he was given. Being stupid, though, is, unfortunately, not illegal... nor is it cause to file what nearly every unbiased legal expert considers trumped-up murder charges. The man may be guilty of something, but it's not 2nd-degree murder. This entire case is a blatant waste of taxpayer money with only one goal in mind: furthering the career of an overzealous and morally contemptuous prosecutor. Everyone on each side who is getting wound up about this case is playing directly into her hands.
I see your point.
If you notice that someone is following you in a car and he has a gun, and if he gets out of his car and runs after you with his gun, I can't imagine why you'd feel justified hitting him first...
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
LIAR!
He was told that they didn't need to follow. The 911 dispatcher has as much legal authority over a caller as you do over me.... it was a standard CYA move by the department.
It most definitely _is_ excessive force by any rational person's standards - it just may not be judged as such by the courts.
Courts get stuff wrong all the time.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Look, I've met a 911 operator. These people are not cops. They are just fairly-normal phone answering people.
You think Zimmerman was acting in a predatory fashion while he was actively on the phone with the police?? Did you listen to the tapes? Won't you at least give the man the benefit of the doubt and let the evidence come out for the jury to hear?
Zimmerman used a gun on an unarmed opponent - there are stages of escalation even in combat and you never go straight from "hands" to "gun".
hands -> blunt weapon -> sharp weapon -> gun -> automatic weapon
it's cool to one-up your opponent if he would otherwise overwhelm you but any more than that is disproportionate force.
(I obviously don't know nor care about Florida law - this is what i was taught during military service and what i still hold to be reasonable)
actually ... we see that those who commit heinous acts of violence are often cowards who sound big in their writings.
The Trayvon case shows one thing: the negro of America need the Panthers again, to protect them against white and jewish oppression! (Zimmermann is a sephardim marrano a.k.a. spanish-jew on the maternal ascent.) Even though the current president of the USA, born Barack "Bari" Malik Shabazz (nom-du-guerre Barack Hussein Obama) is the illegitimate biological son of Malcolm X, the slain negro civil rights hero and former Panther leader, said Barack son is refusing to do anything to protect black people from the white and jewish vigilants and their lapdog police.
Ideally, the negro of USA should leave CONUS and take a portion of the national wealth with them, per capita propertional with current negro presence in the USA demographics. Such vast money would finance the establishment of a huge and prosperous empire in Africa, whose Rastafari emperor would command immense respect from all premiers of the world. As long as the negro remain in the USA, their toils only serve to make jews and white anglo-saxon protestant tycoons ever more richer, while their lapdog police throws legions of nego into supermax prisons every year! The negro of the USA are the finest among all negro, in the same way the negro race is the finest among all human colours. The US negro deserve a better fate, a fate of greatness and joí that they would bring to their ancestral land of Africa. Black power forever!
Here is the 911 transcript relevant portion. Show me where he was ordered (your words) to "stand down" and when he said, "No, I'm not letting him get away." I know the actual facts are a bit of a nuisance in the way of painting Zimmerman as a homicidal psychopath stalking someone.
From the 911 Transcript:
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:
George. He ran.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman:
Zimmerman.
911 dispatcher:
What’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman:
407-435-2400
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman:
Yeah.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman:
Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]
.
Zimmerman's father was formerly a judge (retired from being a magistrate in Virginia) who knew the police chief in the town of Sanford. That may have been a key factor in G. Zimmerman not being charged as he brought up the "stand your ground defense". Zimmerman was brought in to the police station and interrogated for at least 5 hours [according to the wikipedia page and a few orlando sentinel stories]:
EMTs treated Zimmerman at the scene, after which he was taken to the Sanford Police Department. Zimmerman was detained and questioned for approximately five hours.[17][18][19] He was then released without being charged;...
It may mostly be a thin-blue line encompassing judges and former judges that just wasn't able to hold because of all of the publicity which ensued.
says you're wrong. Martin was the attacker. And more than likely his digital comments will indicate a proclivity to such.
Talk to your shrink about your crippling case of delusional paranoia
Perhaps you could explain how Martin ended up on Zimmerman's chest, pounding his head into the sidewalk?
how strongly people need/want to believe that violent "white" people with guns are the problem with America.
They've always said, gun ownership is about responsibility. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. OK, so Zimmerman took a gun and started a conflict. HOWEVER it went down, Zimmerman escalated a nothing-doing situation to a murder. So, as someone who doesn't own a gun, do you think I'm OK with this? You think my response is, "oh well, that sucks but we'll never know if Trayvon lunged at him."
Hell no, my response is if gun owners don't see a problem with this kind of a situation, then strike these stand-your-ground laws from the books. Obviously, the line for gun owner responsibility has been rolled back and I'm not letting that line get rolled over onto my corpse one day.
I had an old guy basically try to start a fight with me once absolutely out of the blue. I had a very strong inclination that he was armed. Had we met in a dark alley and he felt more empowered to shoot me out of witness sight, he would've had a hell of an argument for self defense with me being 250 and him being a tiny old man.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
(1) "Stalk". Cite?
(2) 100 lb lighter. That's why the pitiful victim (did you hear he was black?) was on top, pounding the Hispanic's head into the ground. Got it.
(3) No, "the police" did not "tell" Zimmerman to leave it alone. The police dispatcher informed him that they didn't need for him to keep Martin in sight. Check the tapes.
(4) "Pulled the gun... needless death." It will be up to a jury to decide whether the use of deadly force was justified when the shootee was mounted on top of the shooter, doing his best to fracture his skull. Until then "needless" is tendentious. You're claiming as fact that which is yet to be proved.
(5) Explanation for my reasoning is simple. Zimmerman violated no law. Martin violated many.
He's already a murderer based on the facts that aren't in dispute.
Now we just have bigots trying to justify the killing of a nigger that was walking through the wrong neighborhood.
They are making a mockery of the rules of evidence to create any excuse to demonize the victim.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Say again? "Who was the aggressor is hard to say..."
I'd say the one who followed, lost, and reacquired the other then, against the instructions of the 911 operator, exited his car with his gun to confront an innocent man was the aggressor. When you start a fight you don't get to claim self defence after shooting the unarmed man you freely engaged without any provocation on his part. Assuming of course that you don't consider being black an provocation.
> Are you a lawyer or other legal expert, or just some guy making stuff up?
No. I am just someone that might sit on a jury and somone that doesn't want a jackass like Zimmerman prowling through the neighborhood. With my own HOA we had a nice visit from the local police asking all present to never engage in that kind of nonsense.
Dirty Harry is both a fictional character and well trained.
You are neither.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Except that all constructions of what happened suggest that Trayvon did not know that George had a gun until after the physical confrontation began (that's what the "concealed" part of concealed carry means).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But Zimmerman himself said that Martin was trying to get his gun, so he can't claim that Martin didn't know he had one. As for being cornered and not being able to run away, that sounds a bit like the actual situation. I don't have a map of the neighborhood to truly work this out, but Martin obviously didn't go directly home. This makes some sense when some scary stranger was after him for some unknown reason either because he didn't want to lead Zimmerman to where he lived or because he was essentially running and hiding from Zimmerman. Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle and is walking around looking for Martin when Martin comes out to confront him. It's possible that Martin was lurking, waiting to strike, but it seems more plausible to me that he really was cornered.
It's pretty certain that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, and Zimmerman has stated that, after lying to Martin about following him (instead of saying that he was with the neighborhood watch), he turned away from him and went for his cellphone. From Martin's point of view, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have thought Zimmerman was going for a gun.
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
Amazing that you apply that to Zimmerman but not to Martin. Also, I'm pretty willing to bet that if Zimmerman had been chasing a teenage girl around that way instead of a boy and had been arrested, you'd be calling him a moron rather than defending him.
I don't know that Martin felt his life was threatened. He might simply have been annoyed at being followed and decided to beat the snot out of Zimmerman to teach him a lesson. That's what Zimmerman claims, anyway.
Even if Zimmerman didn't obviously have a gun (he claims that Martin tried to take the gun from him, so clearly Martin did know), I don't see how you could reasonably believe that no-one would consider his behaviour threatening.
But, when Martin asked Zimmerman what his problem was, Zimmerman didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch, but instead lied and acted suspiciously. This is Zimmerman's version of events, not Martin's (since, you know, dead).
Provided that's really what happened, Zimmerman has already explained it. He chased Martin down in a vehicle, cornered him, but thought he'd lost him, got out of the vehicle to look around on foot, was confronted by Martin who demanded to know what he was doing, then Zimmerman lied about what he was doing and acted suspiciously, probably making Martin think that Zimmerman was going to shoot him.
Following is when you just follow someone who isn't reacting to you. Chasing is when they do react to you and try to get away from you, which even Zimmerman admits Martin did. So, unless you have some special definition of chasing, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman lost Martin, parked, then looked around for him on foot. Then Martin confronted him (once again, provided that Zimmerman is telling the truth), which strongly suggests that Martin was hiding nearby somewhere. Zimmerman was on foot and apparently near his car, but wasn't leaving. Zimmerman lied to Martin about what he was doing and turned his body away from him and went for his cell phone. Martin almost certainly knew that Zimmerman had a gun (Zimmerman has claimed that Martin tried to take it). Given all those facts, it's hard not to conclude that Martin thought that this bizarre, random stalker was about to shoot him.
That is the nice thing about conceal carry though. You do not know who is armed, so it is better not to fuck with anyone. It makes for a less violent community overall.
This:
The part that got him permanently removed from consideration was that he was stupid enough to allow evidence of a crime to be permanently recorded. That kind of lapse in judgement we can do without.....
-=Geoskd
Proves this:
...everyone attacking each other and scheming and its fine if you get away with it but if you get caught society punished you to the utmost.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
-MBGMordern
They told that racist prick to stay away and he went and created a problem; Mr Rambo wannabe had to take action. There wasn't anything going on, his 911 call didn't give any reasons why the police should even come check out the suspicious black kid. This is why black males and minorities get hassled just walking in the wrong part of town when some white coward calls in the cops to question them. I'm not black but I've been in areas as a teen where some old lady calls because a gang walked on her lawn and the cops would show up to question us.
Instead of a beatdown, its fear of life... being intimidated?? its fear for your life... every paranoid over compensating coward will be able to shoot most people. These neighborhood watch fanatic types are always big cowards.
I don't care if the teen purposely pounded on him, his life was not in jeopardy... teens killing adults is quite rare; even in this country (hint: national news covers man biting dog means it is not that common.)
They've had somebody ID the voice yelling for help. I thought it wasn't zimmerman?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Zimmerman used a gun on an unarmed opponent - there are stages of escalation even in combat and you never go straight from "hands" to "gun".
Zimmerman said that Martin was slamming his head into a concrete sidewalk; that's potentially lethal right there. Zimmerman also said that Martin spotted the gun and said "You are going to die tonight". We only have Zimmerman's word for the latter, but as to the former, he had head wounds consistent with his story.
And a witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, attacking "MMA style", which most people took to mean beating with alternating fists.
So, while I agree with you that a simple bare-handed attack is several levels below lethal force response level, this situation may well have been an appropriate one for a letal force response.
In any event, it is not your job to make that decision, or mine. There will be a trial, and the issues of fact and law will be laid out.
No he wasn't. Read the transcript of the 911 call. He was told he didn't need to follow Martin, but he wasn't forbidden from it. In fact, once Zimmerman acknowledges this and continues to follow, the operator says "alright" and never mentions staying put again for the remaining 1:40 of the phone call.
Zimmerman was told to de-escalate the situation by the 911 operator by staying in his vehicle and instead he decided to escalate. That's murder.
No, no it is not. It isn't because that isn't what happened and a 911 operator's instructions carry no more weight than mine would. It is a request, nothing more. You're letting your desire for it to be murder cloud things.
I'm not sure I understand the desire on the part of some for this case to be something other than what it is.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
> Are you a lawyer or other legal expert, or just some guy making stuff up?
No. I am just someone that might sit on a jury and somone that doesn't want a jackass like Zimmerman prowling through the neighborhood. With my own HOA we had a nice visit from the local police asking all present to never engage in that kind of nonsense.
Dirty Harry is both a fictional character and well trained.
You are neither.
I hope for the sake of justice that you're never on a jury for any case of importance. Your prejudice is showing.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Dirty Harry is both a fictional character and well trained.
You are neither.
WTF, dude? What did I say that made me deserve that?
And what do you think you know about my level of training?
Seriously dude, chill out.
Anyway, for your information, so far I have managed to live my entire life without pointing a gun at another human being, let alone shooting anyone. So I really don't see myself as another Dirty Harry. WTF.
And WHO STARTED THIS FIGHT?
Even more likely than that, Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Of course, because as any murderer will tell you, the first thing you do when you're off to murder someone is to call 911 before committing the murder and ask the dispatcher to send the police immediately to your location.
My God, are people really this dumb?
We can argue all day about what may or may not have been said, whether excessive force was used, who was at fault, etc, but to claim this was some kind of premeditated murder is beyond stupid.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
A man was attacked. If you are armed you can not allow a wrestling or fist fight situation to take place. If you do not go to the gun your attacker very well may take that gun and use it against you or even others at random.
The very reason that we have stand your ground laws is that we need those laws in place. It is also the reason we have gun carry permits.
There is no measure of degree of attack in the laws. If you are attacked in florida you need not take one step backward. You are not required to placate or try to diffuse the situation in any way. There is no question that Zimmerman was attacked. His only defect was he gave the attacker too much slack. Zimmerman was on his back and his wounds prove that. He had wounds. There was no requirement that he allow anyone to touch him before he fired his weapon.
Without these laws a bully or two can take over a neighborhood with ease. They can intimidate, dominate, and control innocent people. Those under immediate threat must be held harmless when they defend themselves and their property.
Frankly i do not want people alive who only attack people every now and then. So if you come to Florida and decide to punch some guys lights out because you think he looked at your wife wrong think first. Ball up that fist and step towards a man while making angry remarks and you may well get shot right between the eyes.
Why else would someone carry a loaded handgun? Handguns in general are for killing people, if he was hunting deer or such he'd have a rifle and hunting in a residential neighbourhood is heavily frowned upon. If he was going to the target range, why have the gun loaded? Same with transporting it for other reasons. He was carrying a loaded gun, the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Seriously, isn't victim character assassination pretty much the ultimate admission of guilt? You give up on denying the crime all together and start victim blaming. That is a sign of guilt if I've ever seen one. Which is probably why I'll never get on a jury.
And he should face the consequences of that decision, which should be a murder conviction. He's not being tried for disregarding a lawful order from anyone. The 911 was aware of the situation, advised him that police were on the way and that he should stay in his vehicle. He chose to escalate and should face the music for his decision.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
In order:
Engage in constructive dialogue with the attacker
Call 911
Pray to Obama
I hope for the sake of justice that you're never on a jury for any case of importance. Your prejudice is showing.
Yeah, your prejudice against dumbasses with concealed weapons permits is showing.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
How is Iran wanting nuclear weapons not self defense?
The same way that the Joker wanting a chemistry set in Arkham isn't for self-improvement.
Will Tray get justice? After all one of them was shot, the other did the shooting. And you can pretend the media is against Zimmerman, but Fox and Talk Radio promote him endlessly.
Let me ask another question. What if Tray was white? What if he too was from a fine connected Jewish family?
Fisrtly, you have to be trialed and found guilty to be given that title. I only say this because this case made him guilty before he was given a trial. This was all for politics and to make some money off of this case. I think the real criminals are the media and the politicians perverting this case.
Handguns in general are for killing people
Actually, no. People like me carry handguns for defensive purposes.
It's why we don't favor .22 pistols. A .22 can be lethal, just as an ice pick can be lethal... but we aren't going for lethal; we are going for what is called "stopping power". A guy shot with a .22 might bleed internally and die a few hours later, but the only reason we might shoot him is to stop him from doing something right now. (And it is more humane to shoot someone a single time with a .45 than to shoot him a dozen times with a .22. The doctors will have an easier time treating a single wound.)
Under what circumstances might a handgun be used defensively? Here is a nice summary: http://www.useofforce.us/
I have never even pointed a gun at a fellow human being. But if I ever need to stop someone quickly to prevent a lethal attack, a handgun is the most likely tool I would be able to use.
Many uses of a handgun don't even require the handgun be fired. If an attacker is about to cave in someone's skull with a tire iron, and the attacker finds someone is pointing a handgun at him, he will likely rethink his actions. Guess what, that still counts as a "use" of a handgun, and trivially disproves your notion that handguns are only useful for killing.
Even if I have to shoot the attacker to stop him, I will stop shooting once the threat is neutralized. If I shoot him and he falls down and stops moving, I will cease shooting him. The ambulance will take him to a hospital and he might well live. In any event my intent is not to kill, my intent is to stop.
I don't always carry a gun, but when I do it is always loaded. I live in a pretty safe neighborhood, so I have never needed to use a gun, and God willing I never will. If I do, I hope it will just be to hold an attacker for the police, and not to shoot him.
(In my state, we need a permit to carry concealed; so I walked into a police station, they took my fingerprints, they sent my fingerprints to the FBI, and a few weeks later I got my permit. Guess what, people who voluntarily send their fingerprints to the FBI usually don't cause trouble... the rate of gun crimes amoung permit holders is much lower than the rate in the general population. So if you are wondering if I am some sort of maniac? I'm really not.)
TL;DR A person who carries a concealed pistol is not necessarily hoping to shoot someone, any more than a person who carries a first aid kit is hoping to get wounded, or a person who owns a fire extinguisher is hoping his/her house will be on fire.
In summary, you may think you have logically reasoned out that Zimmerman was a pre-meditated murderer, just looking for a victim. You have not done so; there are reasons other than murder to carry a loaded firearm.
Why else would someone carry a loaded handgun? Handguns in general are for killing people, if he was hunting deer or such he'd have a rifle and hunting in a residential neighbourhood is heavily frowned upon. If he was going to the target range, why have the gun loaded? Same with transporting it for other reasons. He was carrying a loaded gun, the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it.
Given I carry one every day and have no desire to kill anyone I'm sure you'll be surprised when I say your statement is incorrect. I acknowledge my bias, I believe in the right of self-defense and having the best tools at hand to exercise that right. You on the other hand clearly do not believe in self-defense and only see evil where I see being prepared. Perhaps you should check your prejudices and approach things with a bit more of an open mind. My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
Would you say "the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it" to the 100 pound woman who carries or is your prejudice only reserved for men? Do you also believe that someone else should be responsible for your safety? If that is how you choose to live your life, that's your choice. Not everyone chooses to shirk the responsibility for keeping themselves and their family safe. Hundreds of thousands of people, or more, feel that it isn't necessary or even right to foist that responsibility on a police man who likely won't arrive in time to do the job anyway.
TLDR: I carry a gun because carrying a police man would be too heavy.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
...if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
The problem is that if Zimmerman started the fight, and Martin (the only other witness) is dead, now Zimmerman can claim anything he wants.
Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman, was a US Magistrate judge and his mother was a court clerk so, even before he had a lawyer, it would be easy for him to get advice on exactly what to say to beat the rap.
Not pleasant? NOT PLEASANT? It's pretty hard to mistype 'scary' as 'not pleasant'. That, or you've never been followed around.
Amazing that you apply that to Zimmerman but not to Martin. Also, I'm pretty willing to bet that if Zimmerman had been chasing a teenage girl around that way instead of a boy and had been arrested, you'd be calling him a moron rather than defending him.
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
In the end accordingly to the law it is irrelevant what Martin thought, even if he thought Zimmerman was going to pull a gun and attack him (which he should have taken as a clue to run away), if Zimmerman didn't really pull the gun first, legally he didn't initiate anything and was within his rights to defend himself when he was attacked.
Oh, and you can rest assured a teenage girl wouldn't try to beat a guy to death and therefore wouldn't ever create a similar situation of self-defense, but if one pulled a gun and got shot as consequence I wouldn't be defending her.
In your head only. There is nothing even remotely associated to murder here. He has every legal right to walk away from his car and to defend himself if his life was threatened, even if he knew for sure that his life would be threatened beforehand. "Choosing to escalate" is not a crime, and much less the equivalent to murder.
Actually, no. People like me carry handguns for defensive purposes.
You can sit there and justify your sick murder fantasies any way you like, but what it comes down to is you're carrying a lethal weapon that you intend to use to kill someone.
If you live in a part of the world that is genuinely so dangerous that you need to carry a lethal weapon because you're afraid for your own safety, then I'm sorry for you. Have you considered moving somewhere safer?
He is not associated with any recognize neighborhood watch. Also he his action go against standard neighborhood watch protocol.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=neighborhood%20watch%20protocol&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaonwatch.org%2Fassets%2Fpublications%2F0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf&ei=WMiDUJazBOOPiALZvYEo&usg=AFQjCNH91ux2G0uhmJIEbsmWLqvZVEQ5Bw
I mean it. Delete your accounts ( you should have done this JANUARY 1ST 2012 when the NDAA kicked in), and blacklist every fucking one of these gay commie fag spy op's.
When officials ask you about your accounts or activity, tell them to go fuck themselves.
Programmers need to dump your pro fascist employers, and program for point to point encrypted voice/vid (not skype, not sip, not asterisk, not a pbx, not insecure.
Users dump your pro fascist applications.
Connect the dots, boycott, and blacklist the fuck out of them.
http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/online-spying.htm
Of course the first thing you'd do if you're worried you are outclassed in a physical fight with someone is NOT STALK THEM and stay sat in your car.
But if that doesn't make you feel manly and the 911 dispatcher doesn't say you can, you will ignore them.
Think of this: if Zimmerman had not had a gun or any weapon, would he have gone out of his car and done the same thing?
No?
Then the gun is what he wanted to use. He may have wanted to cow this uppy nigger kid rather than shoot him, but he did and he wanted to use his gun and that's murder.
... not witnesses or victims.
What I find most interesting is the media's attempt to sway the public's opinion. However, people quickly found his Twitter account and were able to do some arm-chair detective work that wouldn't have been possible, say, 5-10 years ago.
Now we know the truth, and the media has failed to shape the public's outcry for legislation.
Like the newspapers, they are struggling to modernize.
You mean like beating up the school bus driver isn't relevant to the case? Is that what kids all do nowadays? Beat up the school bus driver all the time? Is that part of the growing up process to be a bully not only to other kids, but to adults too?
I have to admit, you have a point. If I were Martin and some guy was following me around in a truck, I'm not thinking he has good intentions. Martin trying to take the gun only means he was aware aware he had a gun at some point, not prior to this becoming a physical altercation. At that point it's only common sense that if you're in a fight with someone and they produce a gun, taking it away is a really good idea. Getting away without doing so is virtually impossible, as you're either at pont blank range with your back turned, or at point blank range backing away much slower than a run, in either case an easy to hit target.
"Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'""
Um no... seeing how Trayvon Martin is already dead - and he's not the one on trial.
"Keep in mind George Zimmerman's already been proven to have a criminal past, scuffling with a Police Officer and creating a public disturbance .. Zimmerman's gotten this far with the case is because his father, a retired high courts judge from Virginia", link
"George Zimmerman's criminal records have been revealed. The records show that he does not have a clean past and has had several brushes with the law"., link
"George Zimmerman, Son of a Retired Judge, Has 3 Closed Arrests", link
I've never heard or even heard anyone try to pass off the scuffles on his head as a "severe beating". More like he scraped his head a little bit, and that's what the evidence has suggested.
He didn't choose his parents. But because he was randomly chosen with the ones he has, he's fucked from ever using lethal force. Talk about living in a tainted well. One man's action of violence will either kill or land you in jail. Nice!
Life is not for the lazy.
I guess you have never experience someone asking you what your fucking problem is and following it up with an immediate right hook. get out of your mum's basement.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
It is not legal to initiate a deadly scenario, and then murder someone because they attempt to escape said scenario. On the street, watching a teen walk by, Zimmerman was in absolutely no peril. Wielding a gun and chasing down someone who's done nothing but walk down your street with the wrong colour of skin is not standing your ground, and is not self defense. Vigilante violence must never be tolerated.
Zimmerman was with the neighborhood watch and was chasing Martin. According to Zimmerman's testimony, Martin confronted him about why he was chasing him and Zimmerman, instead of saying that he was with the neighborhood watch, lied, then turned his back to Martin and went for his cell phone. Since he was wearing a gun and, given his clothing, Martin must have seen it, Zimmerman's actions would have seemed pretty suspicious and threatening. Seriously, what is it with people treating this as if it were some random encounter between Zimmerman and an irrationally angry and violent Martin? Even if Zimmerman's account of the situation is exactly true, Martin had every reason in the world to think he was fighting for his life against a dangerous aggressor. The fact that Zimmerman ended up shooting him right through the heart seems to support that idea.
Zimmerman had a gun. It was legal to carry one, but gun ownership has certain responsibilities. Even more so when you're actually carrying it on you. Pro-gun advocates are always saying things like "an armed society is a polite society" insisting that the implicit threat of violence that comes with carrying a gun is a preventative. That's all well and good, but if you're going to follow that reasoning, you have to recognize that carrying a gun does in fact present the world with that implicit threat of violence. If someone is chasing you down, it's threatening enough. If they also have a gun, that threat is greatly increased.
Martin trying to take the gun only means he was aware aware he had a gun at some point, not prior to this becoming a physical altercation.
Given the clothing Zimmerman was wearing, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to spot the gun. Either way, his behaviour has to have seemed pretty bizarre and threatening to Martin. All in all, the whole thing was just a set of tragic mistakes, but the responsibility for it is clearly Zimmerman's
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
It's not clear exactly when Martin realized that Zimmerman had a gun, but it was probably after he approached him, at which point, retreat doesn't seem like a safe option, especially if you're a teenage kid who believes that handgun accuracy is similar to what you see in movies. Turning your back on someone with a gun who you think wants to hurt you is not something you can expect people to do.
Oh, and "trying to beat another person to death just because he was there"? Yeah, poor Zimmerman, on his way back from the store and this kid comes out of nowhere and... Oh wait, that's backwards. Martin was the one minding his own business and Zimmerman was the one who just came out of nowhere.
Also, saying that Martin deserved to die? What kind of sick, twisted person are you? We're talking about a real human being here.
As for my example with a teenage girl, I didn't, in my hypothetical example, say that the girl would attack Zimmerman. The example was if he had been arrested for being a creepy stalker. In that situation, with the exact same behaviour, he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt that so many people seem to be frothing at the mouth to give him.
Fine then, here's another example. Zimmerman chases down a teenage girl and her father catches him doing it, asks Zimmerman what he thinks he's doing, to which Zimmerman responds the way he did to Martin. The angry, protective father attacks him, thinking he's a threat to his daughter, and Zimmerman ends up shooting the father in the heart? Whose side are you on that scenario?
It is called racism. If both were the same color there would be no court. This will be railroaded like most things Jesse Jackson gets involved with.
The Miranda warning applies to anything you say AFTER the warning is formally verbalized to you by (I'll use the formal, polite term) a law enforcement officer. This story is clearly referring to anything you say (or tweet) EVER. We live in perilous times. Apparently I gave up the right to remain silent about 15 years ago.
You can sit there and justify your sick murder fantasies
So, do you have any ability at all to emphasize with people who aren't exactly like you? Do you just make a snap pre-judgement on any "others" who are alien to your own existence? Do you really think you can read a few anonymously written words and know that I am a bad person worthy of your disgust or hate? Does it make you feel proud and superior to sneer at me for my "sick murder fantasies"?
I wrote a whole longish post on why a handgun is useful for defense, and you completely failed to absorb any of that information. I think it is because you didn't even try, not because you are just too stupid to understand simple explanations.
If I ever have to point a handgun at another human being, I expect it to be the worst day of my life. I don't want it. I definitely don't have fantasies about it.
You know what would be worse than pointing a gun at another human being? Watching that human being do something horrible to someone, such as caving in her skull with a tire iron. Or having my own skull caved in with a tire iron. Or watching a couple dozen people being shot down and being unable to do anything to stop it.
I wish there was a magic weapon like the phasers from Star Trek. Phasers knock people out with no danger of death, yet they work reliably all the time. If I could get something like that, I would, because I have no desire to kill anyone. See, the problem is that they are not real.
So, since phasers are just a fantasy, and I recognize the possibility that the violence in the world might happen when I'm around, I have gotten pistol training; I have sent my fingerprints to the FBI, and gotten a concealed carry permit; and I own some firearms.
I am not any kind of cop. I have gotten first aid training and CPR training, which doesn't make me any kind of doctor or EMT. I don't go looking for criminals to arrest, and I don't go looking for injured people to treat. But neither I will not be totally useless if some attacker starts killing people near me, or if someone has a medical emergency near me. I do not want to have to exercise my gun training or my first aid/CPR training; I would much prefer to go my whole life without being near violence, and without anyone around me being injured.
Also, I don't walk around all the time thinking "ZOMG!!! This stranger is probably going to attack me!!!1!" But I recognize the possibility and I know what I will do if it happens. This is the total opposite of living in sick fantasies; this is facing reality. (And before you accuse me of "living in fear": I find I have actually less fear of strangers when I know I have a chance if they do turn out to be dangerous. I don't walk through dark alleys in the bad part of town at 2 A.M., of course, because I'm not looking for trouble ever.)
If you live in a part of the world that is genuinely so dangerous that you need to carry a lethal weapon because you're afraid for your own safety, then I'm sorry for you.
There is no part of the world that is completely safe. I actually live in a pretty safe area, but nowhere is 100% safe. The police are mostly good people, and they want to protect everyone, but they can't be everywhere. As the saying goes: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."
If I hear someone break in my house at night, I will not grab a gun and go looking for the guy. I'll call the cops and let them search my house. On the other hand, if some big guy kicks in the door to my bedroom, he will find a gun pointed at him and I will shoot him before I'll let him come in and hurt my spouse and me.
I've never needed to use a gun defensively, just as I have never needed to use a fire extinguisher. I never want to have to use either, but there is a chance of needing either, no matter where you live. You can choose to accept that, or you can live in denial.
Can you outrun a bullet? If they were at arm's length (if Zimmerman caught Martin for example), and Zimmerman pulled a gun and threatened to shoot, wouldn't the smart thing be to try to get the gun away from him? After all, bullets are pretty fast, and you're not all that hard to hit from 1m away if you don't have a running start.
Would you take the same stance if Martin was a white woman? Or would you say that she was in the right when she maced the guy who was following her?
Is it legal to stop random people and hold them prisoner 'until the police can talk to them'?
The speech (tweets, postings, etc.) in question is not related to a Miranda warning in any way because it was not made by the person charged with a crime. The speech is not being used against the defendant but is being used by the defendant to support his case. How on earth did this question ever make it on Slashdot? Commander Taco where are you?
I can't believe the audacity of some of you people... Did Treyvon follow the killer in a vehicle ? get out and confront him when explicitly told not to do so by the police ? take a loaded weapon and an unbalanced mind on to the street ? No he did not ! And information from those who knew Zimmerman show a clear pattern of degradation of judgment and other psychological deterioration prior to the murder of this young man minding his own bisiness on his way home after a trip to the shop.. Zimmerman had a clear agenda and profile and like others was damn well going to " STAND HIS GROUND ".
So, can he escalate all the way from "black kid walking around" to "deadly shooting" in one step, or does he need intermediate steps (how many), before it goes from murdering a black kid to legally escalating a shopping trip into a killing?
No, he didn't start the fight. I've provided exactly as much evidence as you have. However, if you actually go searching for evidence, the evidence strongly favors Trayvon starting the fight, not Zimmerman. Following someone is NOT the start of a fight.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
That's actually a pretty strong reason to say that it should be excessive force for the police to shoot you when it's not for a member of the general public. They are the ones with all that training in other methods, they should actually use it.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Martin didn't know he had a gun until during the fight.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Have you actually read Zimmerman's version of events?
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
How exactly did Zimmerman lie to Martin about what he was doing? Here is the description of events: Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
You are the only one I've seen to claim Zimmerman was turning away and going for his phone. Do you have a source, or did you just invent that to justify asserting that Martin was really acting in self defense? Zimmerman's claims may be full of shit, but his story is consistent with what little physical evidence we have.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Do you mean that it should never have been investigated, since it wasn't before int was publicized? Do you mean the police should always take the shooter's word about what happened in a situation like this without looking at any other evidence or talking to witnesses, or do you mean you believe that after collecting evidence they should have realized there was no reason to bring him to trial?
I would also like to add, If both Martin and Zimmerman have violent histories than that will probably go in Zimmerman's favor because of innocent until proven guilty. Too much doubt about what happened will mean no conviction.
Posting pics & bragging about crimes committed > simple forum posts.
Posting pics & bragging about crimes committed from your personally identifiable account - just plain stupid.
It's one thing to be a poseur and sit at home and not commit any crimes, in which case you can BS all you want.
It's another thing altogether when you DO commit crimes and you DO post about them and you DO get caught.
See the difference?
No, he didn't start the fight.
You state this as if you know it to be a fact.
I never said he did, or didn't, start the fight. I said:
"if Zimmerman started the fight"
Unfortunately, only two people know who started the fight:
One is dead.
The other has a tremendous motivation to lie.
Damn. I completely missed the "if" when reading it the first time. I'm sorry. I have seen numerous people claim that GZ following TM was the start of a fight, and mistakenly assumed your post was another example of that.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Were you shot at some point in your life? Cuz, man, you seem to have this odd fetishist hatred of them, judging from some of your posts.
Like the stereotype of early man fears the gigantic statue they worship, which represents DEATH and DESTRUCTION.
Seriously, get over it.
They push metal very very fast. They go boom. They can kill or injure people. Society has them and they're not going away anytime soon. That is all.
For that you learned to say 'I felt my life was in danger, so I fought back'?
No? Did you expect the judge to spell it out for you?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That can't even be an honest argument. The intermediate step is black kid knocks you down and starts to punch you.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
TLDR: I carry a gun because carrying a police man would be too heavy.
I don't believe you.
Given I carry one every day and have no desire to kill anyone I'm sure you'll be surprised when I say your statement is incorrect. I acknowledge my bias, I believe in the right of self-defense and having the best tools at hand to exercise that right. You on the other hand clearly do not believe in self-defense and only see evil where I see being prepared. Perhaps you should check your prejudices and approach things with a bit more of an open mind. My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
Would you say "the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it" to the 100 pound woman who carries or is your prejudice only reserved for men? Do you also believe that someone else should be responsible for your safety? If that is how you choose to live your life, that's your choice. Not everyone chooses to shirk the responsibility for keeping themselves and their family safe. Hundreds of thousands of people, or more, feel that it isn't necessary or even right to foist that responsibility on a police man who likely won't arrive in time to do the job anyway.
I could carry a gun every day. And I don't mean in the strictly theoretical sense of, guns exist and I could get one... I mean, I have the gun, I have the ammo, I have the holster, and I have the little piece of paper from the state police saying I can legally own and carry those things. But I generally don't.
The best tool for self defense is not a firearm; it is the brain. That applies to the 100 pound woman as much as to the 300 pound man. This case is a great example of that. Perhaps at that moment, the only way for Zimmerman to escape serious injury or death was to discharge his weapon. But it seems, even with the most favorable reading of the facts, there were many points when he could have made a different decision so as to not end up in a situation where the only way out was to kill a person.
My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
If you shoot someone, your beliefs certainly are imposing something on someone else. I can't help but think of the studies that show safety features in cars--such as air bags and ABS--cause people to drive more recklessly. That sense of safety, knowing the machine will protect me from myself, causes people to act in ways they might not if not given the expectation of a safety net.
So that's where this case comes down in my mind. If Zimmerman did what he would have done, as the neighborhood watch, even if he didn't have the firearm, if events would have played out the same except with a different ending, then he can say he used the gun in self defense.
But if that is not the case, if he would not have pursued and made contact with Martin if he didn't have the protection of the gun, then in my mind that crosses over in to the 'he was looking for trouble' territory.
Back to your statement, atriusofbricia, really? You really feel threatened every day? You really have no choice but to go in to those situations where you need a firearm to assure your safety? I am skeptical.