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'?'"

Comments

*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I'm staying outta this one. Just keep walking, everyone.

Re:*walks on by*

[jythie]

Good plan.. good plan....

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

Now go back in time, and tell George Zimmerman to do it.

There are times when intervention is appropriate, but there are interventions which are excessive and lead to worse consequences.

And yes, even if you can argue that Zimmerman's actions weren't criminal, you can hopefully accept that the results were tragic.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.

These things seem severely in doubt.

Re:*walks on by*

[sribe]

It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.

These things seem severely in doubt.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. The evidence points strongly to Zimmerman stalking and harassing Martin. What happened after that, we don't know for sure, and never will. But it is pretty obvious that Zimmerman engaged in some level of provocation.

Re:*walks on by*

[Eunuchswear]

All death is tragedy you sociopathic fuck.

Death of innocents is double tradgedy.

Re:*walks on by*

[theedgeofoblivious]

This is why we need an assault Skittles ban.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

No death is tragic, you sniveling, sheltered fuck. People and ALL living creature die all of the time. It's part of life, so grow up and accept it.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

What a high standard...you know what that tells me?

That I see somebody who is looking for an excuse to exonerate Zimmerman. If Trayvon Martin wasn't a saint, well, obviously Zimmerman did the right thing!

Sorry, but it's tragic because somebody died due to human action. That it was for no reason except the conduct of a man who intervened with deadly force in circumstances that are doubtful at best makes it even more worrisome. Your attempt to deflect that admission reveals a lot about why the law needs to be very careful about when it allows such force to be used.

I'm only afraid Florida's law is going to send the wrong message, due to a frenetic desire to protect citizens from the perceived bogeyman of the courts, they'll give free reign on the other side.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

it's only a "tradgedy" [sic] if you think life is valuable.
a tragedy is your dad spilling his rancid seed into your mom's festering cunt because it made you and you are not valuable. you take away value from earth.

see how this game works? just because you feel so strongly about whatever you say doesn't make you "right"

imbecile

Re:*walks on by*

[hairyfeet]

There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head. Add to this it was over 85 degrees that night yet he was bundled up in a black hoodie and the reason he was in FLA in the first place was getting kicked out of his former school for theft?

I'm sorry but there is plenty of doubt in this case. mark my words after seeing all the evidence the jury will acquit, which will then be followed by "flash mobs" screaming "justice for Trayvon" while they go on a looting and violence spree, just like they did the day of the funeral. How justice and looting go together damned if I know, but that's what will happen.

Re:*walks on by*

[rmdingler]

Insightful is the mod here, although in this country that's just paying attention. A lowered bar, if you will. There is a propensity for riot in the expression of displeasure by our sub-Saharan brethren in response to inferred injustice. Butt, and this is a J-Lo class derriere', similar acts of widespread civil disobedience occur with regularity after sporting championships...in winning and losing cities. Will think for food.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

And your accounting is also suspect, since apparently you don't know that Miami Gardens is in Florida too, and that's where he lived. He wasn't kicked out of school, just suspended. Why? Theft wasn't given as the reason. What is? I don't know that that has been officially released. Do you? Where can we find those records. As for why he was wearing a hoodie? Perhaps because it was raining. Not that it was 85 degrees, even in Florida that would be exceptional in February, but it was raining. Why might somebody cover there head when it's a rainy night? Why? Sorry, but there's plenty of doubt as to what you have to say when you leave so much out and raise such empty questions based on falsehoods. Which is par for the course for this situation.

But if you don't understand why people riot and take stuff, then you don't understand how they see things. Which is that all of that stuff? Being held by somebody who kept it from them. It's strange, it's like you have no empathy or understanding for how people might resent such injustices as they perceive.

Are you that blind to people's feelings? I guess so, since you can't even figure out why somebody would cover their head when it's raining.

Now if you want to say you don't think it's rational, or reasonable, you can, but that would be missing the point, it's not a rational reaction, it's emotional rage. Rage doesn't always act smart, sometimes it lashes out without thought.

You can look down on that if you want, but it is very human.

Do feel free to claim your superiority though, I see somebody else already has.

Re:*walks on by*

[Gorobei]

So person A was walking home doing nothing wrong.
Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.)
Person A was in Florida because he was kicked out of school.

I'm sure you have doubt in your mind. Justifying the idea of killing the weak because they fought back a little before dying is hard.

So you sit in your armchair, drink your drink, and pontificate on the ifs and buts. And with enough words said, you sort of convince yourself that those people had it coming and the world is just.

Re:*walks on by*

[__aaltlg1547]

It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.

These things seem severely in doubt.

Some of us think it's tragic whenever a kid gets shot dead.

Re:*walks on by*

[__aaltlg1547]

They didn't see who started the fight. Doesn't the assailant deserve to be the one in the coffin?

And when did wearing a hoodie become a crime?

And even if you're a juvenile delinquent, aren't you entitled to defend yourself if a man approaches you on the street wielding a gun?

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

a white guy wouldn't even consider walking through the south bronx alone.
a black guy walking through a gated community where white people keep themselves locked up in cages is equally stupid.
It's just judged differently by liberal morons who don't own guns and never set foot in the south.
The fact that he was killed by some quasi legal alien that we have imported to "build" this country is only offset by the fact that the dope called the police.
minorities killing each other in the streets doesn't get my blood boiling the way it used to after the first few hundred thousand times.
What's got the New Yorkers, and Californians all upset is that down heyah, bloomberg and whitman don't carry no weight. and neither do francine brown.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

The nucleotide diversity between 2 humans is estimated to be in the range of 0.1% to 0.4%
on Slashdot, it is significantly less.
You should be more respectful. Statistically speaking, your mom joined the party.

and just for the record i could give a rat's ass about the whole thing.
you fucking obama loving fucktard.

(i just threw that last part in there in case the mod's are sleeping)

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.)

Dead people generally don't inflict injuries.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

Dying people do.

Re:*walks on by*

[hairyfeet]

What royally pisses me off is we have a fricking epidemic in this country of what i call "wolf packs" after the WWII submarine tactic of using strength of numbers as a force multiplier and its spreading like a cancer through the black inner city neighborhoods, yet thanks to the media sucking on the political correctness dick nobody will ask the simple logical question "Why?". Why is this happening, why is it nearly 100% a black inner city phenomena and what can we do to stop it?

Its not poverty, as the poorest state in the nation, WV, is also the least likely to suffer from these wolf packs, and videos taken of these wolf packs show black teens with $200 sneakers and smartphones, its not lack of jobs as other minorities have been hard hit as well and again not seeing this behavior with them, this seems to be limited to inner city black youth between the ages of 14-35. If anyone doubts me here is a partial list of these attacks and note that we had one not 3 days ago!

Personally I think its 50 years of a combination of welfare and a victim mentality pushed upon the black community by these so called "black leaders" like Sharpton who blame everything on somebody else. When you have songs celebrating "baby daddies" and leaders standing there with a straight face and claiming Ebonics is a legitimate language and you're racist if you don't accommodate it, and that getting an education is "acting white"? You are setting entire generations up to fail.

I have to believe that this thing is gonna end up exploding, simply because nobody has the balls to speak up and point out so many black youth are heading straight for a cliff. in the previous decades you could get away with being uneducated because there was always the factory jobs, but those are gone, yet you still have women having multiple kids with multiple deadbeats and refusing to even make their children go to school. They spend all day watching TV and wanting all the expensive trappings they see, yet the community turns on them if they attempt to get an education because they are being "Uncle Toms". I truly believe this violence is gonna end up exploding and its gonna get ugly REAL fast.

and honestly with the crime rate the way it is is anyone surprised more and more look on black teens with fear? Just look at the numbers for yourself, its truly fricking scary the levels of violence we are talking about, and for every Trayvon Martin there are a good 3 or more Wichita Massacres you never hear about thanks to our PC media.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

No one except Zimmerman now knows whether Person A or Person B created the "situation".

Re:*walks on by*

[Cederic]

You sound very very racist.

Try rewriting that whole comment without mentioning someone's colour. It can be done.

Re:*walks on by*

[sribe]

There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head. Add to this it was over 85 degrees that night yet he was bundled up in a black hoodie and the reason he was in FLA in the first place was getting kicked out of his former school for theft?

Well, first off, just because he was getting his ass kicked in no way means he did not provoke the confrontation to begin with. You don't get to start a fight and then claim self defense.

The 2 witnesses, IIRC, saw someone bashing someone else's head against the ground, and the defense has spun that to be Martin on top.

Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it was raining. Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it's a stupid teen fashion thing and he'd wear the same damn clothes whether it was 10 or 100 degrees. But what the hell does that have to do with whether or not Zimmerman started things? Nothing, that's what. It's a red herring meant to play on racial stereotypes.

Re:*walks on by*

[Killall -9 Bash]

I can't see how people don't understand how Trayvon's character may be pertinent.

Zimmerman's story is that he was following a suspected burglar. He called 911, and continued following the suspect despite the dispatcher telling him "you don't need to do that". The suspect noticed he was being followed, and confronted Zimmerman.

Investigating Trayvon's personality traits answers the following questions:
1. Is it possible or plausible that Trayvon was the burglar robbing homes in the area? If so, 'racial profiling' goes out the window. Maybe there are more possibilities for why Zimmerman was following Trayvon than 'racial profiling' and 'good detective work', but the jury will be presented with those two, as they are the opposing claims.
2. Was Trayvon Martin an agressive, confrontational person? If so, Zimmerman's claim that Martin struck first is more believable... and that story needs help. True or not, its a little hard to believe a 17 year old punched an adult with a gun.

Re:*walks on by*

[Anonymous Coward]

And the very best part? The area is still getting break-ins, so we know that Martin most likely had no connection with the initial problems which lead to the altercation in the first place.

Re:*walks on by*

[hairyfeet]

Thank you for proving my point, its NOT a universal event, its happening in the large black communities, yet the politically correct like yourself refuse to even look at the data because we can't come up with white or asian mobs doing the same thing. News Flash..Its NOT RACIST TO POINT OUT THE NUMBERS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY but instead we'll have whole generations of black youth practically born to fail because people like you refuse to see the hard data right in front of your face.

Again don't take MY word for it, go to the FBI's crime information website and look at the data yourself, and note that for the past 25 years they have been ordered to skew that data in the name of political correctness by counting ALL non black crime, asian, latino, middle eastern, as "white" to try to rig the numbers and you STILL have on average 8 to 1 when it comes to violent crimes committed by blacks vs committed by their new definition of white.

I'm sorry if the data doesn't support your politically correct worldview but it don't. Again we need to find out WHY the black neighborhoods are going through this so that we can correct it, otherwise YOU are being racist because you are setting up the entire black community to be looked down upon as a failure and violent subset of the larger whole. Its just as racist as affirmative action which automatically assumes blacks simply aren't smart enough to compete without being a protected class and the underlying cause is the same, racist beliefs that you are smarter and better, they are stupider and more violent and unable to care for themselves. its classic victim mentality and its a cancer.

Re:*walks on by*

[tehcyder]

There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head.

Getting some minor injuries does not justify you shooting someone dead. Only a cunt takes a gun to a fist fight.

Re:*walks on by*

[tehcyder]

No death is tragic, you sniveling, sheltered fuck. People and ALL living creature die all of the time. It's part of life, so grow up and accept it.

Dying before your time is due is tragic, fuckwit.

Just because everyone dies in the end doesn't mean that murder is OK.

Re:*walks on by*

[1s44c]

It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.

No it's not. If, and I don't claim to know so it's a hypothetical if, this kid attacked Zimmerman first it's still tragic. Also it would have been tragic if Zimmerman was beaten to death.

Nobody deserves an instant death sentence with the judge, jury, and witnesses all being the same one emotionally involved person. That's lawlessness taken to its logical extreme.

Re:*walks on by*

[phlinn]

Actually, his story is that he did stop following him after being told "you don't need to do that" and was approached by Trayvon as he returned to his vehicle.

Re:*walks on by*

[phlinn]

Actually, plenty of people deserve it (any actual cold blooded murderer), but it's a bad idea for society to encourage it. Self defense is the most basic form of protecting your rights however, and the evidence suggest that Zimmerman was in fact defending himself.

Re:*walks on by*

[1s44c]

Actually, plenty of people deserve it (any actual cold blooded murderer).

I said 'Nobody deserves an instant death sentence with the judge, jury, and witnesses all being the same one emotionally involved person.'. I think you are saying some people deserve a death sentence, which is a quite different thing to what I was saying.

The whole point of any kind of justice system is that the guilt or lack of guilt and any punishments should be decided by impartial people who are not personally involved in the incident. If citizens can short circuit the whole system by handing out death sentences to each other without any due process then you don't have a justice system, you have a bunch of people murdering each other.

Re:*walks on by*

[1s44c]

There is not a death sentence for theft.
There is not a death sentence for wearing a hoodie.
There isn't even a death sentence for bashing someone's head on the ground after some unknown altercation.
As far as I know there is only a death sentence for murder, and then only after lots of due process.

I do agree with your prediction of an acquittal, protests, and looting though.

Re:*walks on by*

[phlinn]

I really don't think "death sentence without due process" is a fair way to describe actual self defense. The rest of society doesn't have the right to demand that I let myself be killed so that my attacker can get due process instead of me shooting back.

Re:*walks on by*

[cavreader]

If your witnesses saw Zimmerman getting his ass kicked then the Florida law totally supports the right to defend yourself. Just because the other guy brings a knife to a gunfight doesn't matter. Also Zimmerman was working for the HOA at the time which had recently been subjected to multiple break-ins. He had a gun permit and if the witnesses and Zimmerman's documented back of the head injuries he walks and the self righteous mob calling for Zimmerman's head can fuck off.

Re:*walks on by*

[tnk1]

The point of contention is whether Trayvon was actually being attacked or not before the shooting.

If the bashing of Zimmerman's head was due to Zimmerman attacking (ie. it was a general melee started by Zimmerman), then Zimmerman's scrape and bruises are hardly a self-defense situation.

If, however, Trayvon attacked after Zimmerman merely verbally warned/harassed him, then self-defense can be argued, because verbal harassment is not grounds for an attack. You can't attack someone if you are annoyed with them. Trayvon would literally have to feel that Zimmerman was about to pull his weapon or something in order to justify his own attack. Short of that kind of threat, Trayvon could have easily just left the area or retorted verbally.

So, whether this is actually "fighting back", as opposed to initiating violent confrontation is the point here. Determining if Trayvon has a history of initiating violent confrontation or a propensity to do so is pertinent. It also might provide friend lists of people who might be able to testify to his propensities as eyewitnesses.

Mind you, the same could easily be done to Zimmerman to prove he was "looking to shoot someone" or had his own tendencies to violent language which might have made Trayvon think he was about to be attacked and would not be able to evade. So this cuts both ways.

I agree that this could also be done as a character assassination ploy on the behalf of the defense, but as long as that line of investigation could be pertinent, the prosecution has to evaluate and object on a case-by-case basis to stop anything that is purely character assassination. The prosecutors are experienced professional trial lawyers and they both use and know how to defend against character assassination. You can't simply throw out evidence if you think it could be used in a manner that might be unfair, if not defended against.

Consider this. You may not like Zimmerman, and you might feel he shouldn't have been carrying or harassing the kid, but it could have all gone down the way he said it did. Trayvon could easily have attacked him if he felt harassed and Zimmerman could have felt threatened enough to pull his weapon. It doesn't make Zimmerman a good person, it just means that Trayvon and Zimmerman both have poor decision making skills where the consequences to Trayvon were higher because he was outgunned.

Re:*walks on by*

[HornWumpus]

When a violent thug get shot it's not tragic, it justice. The question is one of facts.

How far away from Zimmerman's car was the shooting? If close then it fits Zimmerman's story (he was returning), if far then Zimmerman's credibility is gone and he will be convicted.

zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

some redguard chimped out, end of story

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[toriver]

Justifying murder is a hobby of yours?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems judging people guilty before they have had a fair trial is a hobby of yours.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Dutchmaan]

The first verdict in this thread came from some "other" AC....

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Gordonjcp]

He shot and killed a man. He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.

How is that not murder?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

He deliberately went out with a weapon to defend himself in case he was attacked.

How is that not self defense?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Genda]

Or perhaps reading cogent facts about the case might have lead him to that conclusion? Fact, the young man (17 years old) was shot in the back and the evidence suggests he was shot at some distance, apparently trying to run for his life. Their has never been a single bit of corroborating evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was in any way assaulted. Video at the police station immediately after the incident showed Zimmerman laughing with the police with no injury to the face and no blood on his clothing (anyone who's broken a nose can attest to the flood of bleeding and the unmistakable swelling and bruising that follows.) The young man had no history of violence, was unarmed, and had exactly zero reason to interact with this clown save to defend himself against deadly force. And finally, when Mr. Zimmerman called the police about a suspect walking down the street, the police said to step down and they would handle it, to which he replied,"No way, he'll get away, I'm handling this." So, I don't know, maybe his sounds like science fiction story was true and an sweet unarmed 17 year old kid had a psychotic break and he had to put him down in fear of his life, its not beyond the realm of possibility, its just gonna be a mighty hard sell with the current set of evidence.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Genda]

Only for people of color...

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Bluude]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[jythie]

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...

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[maxdread]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[maxdread]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Sir_Sri]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

And Zimmerman had knowledge of any of this prior to the shooting how?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, in fact it all comes down to something none of us can know and that is who initiated the confrontation.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Pseudonym Authority]

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.''

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[maxdread]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[redmid17]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't shooting an unarmed man (or boy) be responding with "excessive force"?

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[atriusofbricia]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Mike Buddha]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Zcar]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[fredprado]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[russotto]

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.

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[niko9]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[fredprado]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[theedgeofoblivious]

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...

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[clarkkent09]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Firehed]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Bartles]

Perhaps you could explain how Martin ended up on Zimmerman's chest, pounding his head into the sidewalk?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[noshellswill]

A prudent man always prepares for defence; Zim killed an attacking Bantu Neolith. Needs to be done more often. Swallow **that** and gag ya useless lib.com fyuck.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Attila Dimedici]

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).

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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).

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[atriusofbricia]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[atriusofbricia]

> 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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[__aaltlg1547]

Even more likely than that, Zimmerman attacked Martin.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Loki_1929]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[dryeo]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Mike Buddha]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

In order:
Engage in constructive dialogue with the attacker
Call 911
Pray to Obama

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Mike Buddha]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[atriusofbricia]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[drkim]

...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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

Not pleasant? NOT PLEASANT? It's pretty hard to mistype 'scary' as 'not pleasant'. That, or you've never been followed around.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[fredprado]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[fredprado]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Gordonjcp]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[DigiShaman]

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!

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[uninformedLuddite]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[tragedy]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[purelaborja]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[TFAFalcon]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[TFAFalcon]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[TFAFalcon]

Is it legal to stop random people and hold them prisoner 'until the police can talk to them'?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

Martin didn't know he had a gun until during the fight.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

Have you actually read Zimmerman's version of events?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[drkim]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[phlinn]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[kaatochacha]

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.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[HornWumpus]

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?

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[HornWumpus]

That can't even be an honest argument. The intermediate step is black kid knocks you down and starts to punch you.

Re:zimmerman is innocent

[mcmonkey]

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.

Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Nerdfest]

I still don't recall a single story in the mainstream media that had a picture of the victim as anything other than a kid of 11 or so. They're obviously trying to generate outrage for attrcting clicks or purchases.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zimmerman is a red herring. This would never have become a major news case if the police had done a proper investigation instead of questioning the killer for some hours and letting him go, like he'd been caught nabbing candy.

The question is why a murder case, claimed self-defence or not, was given about as much diligence as your average shoplifting.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[RocketRabbit]

Yeah when the recent photos of Treyvon became available the media ignored it.

Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to outrage blacks.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to outrage blacks.

I call bullshit.

Every image of Zimmerman was lightened to make him look white and every image of Treyvon was darkened to clearly show he was black.

You are partly right, but for all the wrong reasons. This was made a national media circus not for gun control but to stir up fear and paranoia in an election year when the nation is already well divided. Pretending it was a white vs black issue even though it was actually a mexican vs black issue was intentional to get whites to fear/dislike blacks. It was all an intentional play on America's racial divide and ultimately vote against Obama and the democrats that inevitably supported waiting until the facts came to light before passing judgement instead of instantly screaming the shooting was justified like all the self identified "gun loving" republicans did.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Lehk228]

you mean the one that wasn't even him? yea thet is why it only showed up in right wing rags and neo nazi blogs

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Belial6]

You have that backwards. If the goal was to make white people fear black people, they would not have printed photos of an 11 year old child. You are right that it was to create racial divide, but it was to rial black people to hate white people, and to kick in the 'white guilt' in white people. The whole thing was portrayed as a big bad evil white man shooting a poor defenseless black child. Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican. Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

My adopted son of 16 was jumped by a grown 40-year-old man who jumped off his porch just to instigate the attack. Because my son is mulatto, the man had all sorts of witness (with statements that contradicted each other and were given up to 3 days after the fact from witnesses not even present), my son was railroaded, tried as an adult and convicted of assault. Justice doesn't really mean much in the USA anymore. We do live in a backwater in upstate NY so this is probably the main reason it happened in this manner. We also didn't run to CNN for public support.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

The kid was 17, and suspended from school over drugs. He was in a deed restricted area, having no friends or family there. He was seen snooping around various properties looking to gain entry to homes.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Mashiki]

You mean the one that *was* him, and only showed up in rightwing blogs and news. Because the media had a narrative to carry? Just like the GP said. How funny that is huh. So, has the grand parts of the media let you in on about his use of codeine, dxm, and various rounds of theft yet? Or are you still waiting for them to tell you.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Glock27]

Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican.

Actually, the white guy is half Peruvian, and half white. Since he was described as a "white Hispanic" I guess we should describe 0bama as a "white African-American". ;-)

Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.

Right, instead it was an attempt to railroad Zimmerman and derail "stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws. Fortunately all that looks to have backfired. I'm hopeful that Zimmerman will walk after the first "stand your ground" review, if in fact the evidence that TM initiated violence continues to be supported.

"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[clarkkent09]

Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to increase the black turnout for Obama in November. FTFY
 
Let's not forget this event happened several months before it was mysteriously chosen, out of hundreds of other homicide cases, to be dragged out into the national spotlight by the media, complete with misleading and inflammatory pictures and storyline.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[redmid17]

His grandpa was black too. Well his grandpa and Obama's grandpa

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not trying to generate outrage "for attracting clicks or purchases", the JEW media is trying to make blacks hate whites even more than they already do, and trying to DISARM whites so that blacks can continue to kill us at a rate many tens of times higher than the rate at which whites kill blacks...

Do you have any idea how many blacks have been murdered by OTHER blacks since Trayvon died?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/race-wars-part-1-the-shocking-data-on-black-on-black-crime/
"A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, reveals that approximately 8,000 — and, in certain years, as many as 9,000 African Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact, that 93% of these murders are in fact perpetrated by other blacks. The analysis, supported by FBI records, finds that in 2005 alone, for example, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the US — again, almost exclusively at the hands of other African Americans."

The JEW media wants blacks to continue to attack whites with impunity, the last thing the Jew wants is for white people to be armed so that we can fight back against the UNWANTED blacks who were FORCED into OUR living space.

Who the hell can watch the disgusting acts at Little Rock, where blacks were forced into a previously all white school, with the whites threatened at GUNPOINT by the army, and think that most whites want to live in a 'diverse' country?

What do white people gain from more 'diversity'?

Trayvon Martin was a typical black thug who got exactly what he deserved. Just think how many people's lives George Zimmerman saved by killing that evil little shit, before he killed somebody else.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the other side of this story?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming incorrectly.

If the goal was to rial black people to hate white people, then that does not trigger 'white guilt' in white people but rather triggers fear and distrust of black people in white people that will then act on that fear in a rather predictable manner: they will buy guns, ammunition, join the NRA, and vote Republican.
It's not about the story, and it's not about the reaction to the story, it's about the chain reaction.

Who was the aggressor is irrelevant because the result has already been attained, the wedge has been pushed that much lower in the racial divide and both sides have stocked up on guns and ammunition, joined the NRA, and many will now vote Republican for the pretense "that Republicans will protect my guns".

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[bfandreas]

Funny. I was under the impression it became national and international news because a kid got shot buying ice tea. And because there was no proper police investigation. There was a very belated public outcry, a belated investigation and a resignation.
Now a national shame is a cause celebrée and the shootist a modern day Alfred Drefus? Does that make right-wing pundits the equivalent of the intellectual circle which was rallied behind the words "J'accuse"?
Monsieur Zola, I presume?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[BasilBrush]

Let's not forget this event happened several months before it was mysteriously chosen, out of hundreds of other homicide cases, to be dragged out into the national spotlight by the media, complete with misleading and inflammatory pictures and storyline.

No it wasn't. It happened Feb 26th 2012. The national media coverage started that same day and ran almost continually for weeks.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[BasilBrush]

"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.

It appears to be interpreted by the gun lobby as allowing killing someone after deliberately advancing towards potential harm.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Glock27]

It appears to be interpreted by the gun lobby as allowing killing someone after deliberately advancing towards potential harm.

If you think about it (a high standard, apparently) you will find a ton of gray area in that. There are a lot of legal, and quite responsible actions, that fall under "advancing towards potential harm".

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[misexistentialist]

Probably a dozen or more unarmed men have been killed by police since the Martin incident, and at least two of them were naked! The anti-gun lobby silently masturbates.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[jedidiah]

No. It became national news because it defies any notion of sanity in a civilized society.

It even defies "Wild West" standards.

If it's at all related to "gun control" in any manner it's a good example of what can happen when the NRA is allowed to run amok.

There is this myth that there was no sense of law and order in the old west. There were even things like gun control. It wasn't all just some sort of Mad Max macho fantasy.

Florida has lower standards now than Tombstone.

People need to get that through their thick skulls.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[bmo]

You got modded down with a bunch of overrateds.

Racists aren't just cowards in meatspace.

--
BMO

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[IHateEverybody]

Really? I thought it was about the murder of a teenager which went investigated because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

And just because somebody embraces his Hispanic heritage after being arrested, it doesn't make him not racist.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Grayhand]

This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.

What's rarely brought up is Zimmerman's history of violence. The guy stalked a kid and the evidence points to him chasing him and jumping him. So he chases an unarmed kid carrying an ice tea and Skittles and attacks then shoots the kid and you're only worried about the attacker? Sounds like there's a lot of bias on your side. Zimmerman has been treated more than fairly. The guy lied about how much money he had so he had a way to skip the country but they foiled his plain by making him wear an ankle bracelet. He was carrying a gun which wasn't allowed for their neighborhood watch. He wasn't scheduled to work then after the police told him not to pursue the kid he chases him and attacks him. He'll probably get off and there will be no justice because it appears he murdered the kid because he assumed a black kid in that neighborhood was up to no good. It's disgusting where they are being allowed dig through his personal e-mail to find dirt on the kid. The judge should be ashamed!

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your son most be an angel. I bet he never lies to you ever.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I was under the impression it became national and international news because a kid got shot buying ice tea.

That's because you bought the liberal media lies and exaggerations and you are ignoring the FACTS. Zimmerman was defending himself from an OBVIOUS threat. Only a moron or a liberal imbecile (same thing, really) cant tell the difference between a "defenceless black man" and someone coming at you in order to MURDER you.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[khallow]

Florida has lower standards now than Tombstone.

Nonsense. Even now, Florida has something like 40 justifiable homicides a year by civilians. That's roughly 1 such death per 400,000-500,000 people. It's just not significant for a problem that is supposedly "running amok".

Even at Tombstone's peak population of something like 14,000 people, that would have been a justifiable homicide every three decades.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.

He is mixed Cuban and Jewish, not Mexican.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[redmid17]

His dad lived there with the dad's GF. Martin was breaking no laws in being there

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Maxo-Texas]

Zimmerman's "history of violence" was an argument with his girlfriend. Both of them had restraining orders put on them to keep them away from each other.

He did lie about the money.
He did carry a gun on watch when he shouldn't.

However, Zimmerman STOPPED when 911 told him not to pursue.
ANd then he talked calmly on the phone with 911 for over a minute after losing travon and then after that was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman.

Had not heard about the work schedule yet. Will have to google that.

He won't get off because it was a black kid up to know good.
If Zimmerman's found innocent, it will be cause there's a reasonable doubt that he was afraid for his life because it looks like a 17 year old athletic guy was beating the hell out of Zimmerman. And Travon is on video in a fist fighting club.

Travon had over a minute to travel 300' to his house and go inside- but instead a couple minutes after Zimmerman lost him, he's on top of Zimmerman apparently rendering a severe beating.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical of the left. Trot out the "race card" when faced with the reality that some young punk had a long history of drug use and violent behavior.

Hey, did you know that he was heavily involved in illegal street fights too? Bet not. Too bad the media(except the evil rightwing media) is the only ones telling you that.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I was under the impression it became national and international news because a kid got shot buying ice tea. And because there was no proper police investigation. There was a very belated public outcry, a belated investigation and a resignation.

And you're mostly wrong, but you said the right key phrases for the mod-bots to kick you up to +5 Insightful.

It became a national news story because the locals started raising a big stink about it. They started raising a big stink because the police did not pursue an aggressive investigation over the incident. You need to understand that Race isn't the major issue- the issue is distrust of anybody wearing a uniform, and especially because of the generally held sentiment that private security guards are people who are too incompetent and mentally unstable to get a job as a Real Cop.

And he didn't get shot for buying a drink at the store. Hell, for all you know he really was looking for a place to rob and got thirsty, or it was just a cover story for why he was wandering around the area. Maybe both, we don't know. But the line you just repeated was what the headlines screamed. Kid shot for buying tea. Kid shot while walking down the sidewalk. The media had the guard pegged as guilty of random murder from day 1, and that's the story they pushed, and that's why you have a faulty memory of the events.

Look, I'm not saying Zimmerman was innocent... but I'm not saying the kid was either.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's Peruvian and German, with a black grandpa.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[bmo]

So obviously all this irrelevant stuff means he deserved to die.

Funny how you can't stand behind your assertions with at least a username.

Anonymous coward indeed.

--
BMO

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Cederic]

Including stalking and harassing someone tha'ts calmly walking somewhere it's legal for them to be?

That doesn't sound responsible to me.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Cederic]

Kid shot while walking down the sidewalk.

Please, tell me how that isn't actually correct? What was the kid doing before Zimmerman confronted him?

the issue is distrust of anybody wearing a uniform, and especially because of the generally held sentiment that private security guards are people who are too incompetent and mentally unstable to get a job as a Real Cop

Exhibit A: man currently on trial for murder

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Cederic]

Has it occurred to you that justifiable homicides aren't the problem?

(Some of those could probably have avoided any homicide had there been fewer fuckwits running around armed)

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Cederic]

You racist cunt.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[erroneus]

It would be less slanted of you to say "the homicide" than "the murder."

I have followed all sorts of stuff about this case and have found two serious problems colliding here. The first is a person who was clearly frustrated with his neighborhood and the crime going on all around there generally committed by "not middle-aged white females" if you get my drift... also a person who had his own issues of self-importance and lack of good personality control. Not an ideal condition on Zimmerman's side of things. The second is a community which supports and defends all young black males with blind faith against anything and everything. (Check this story to see some obvious parallels: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/black-mob-picks-the-wrong-guy/) It does not matter to them that the deceased was a person with behavior problems of his own or that he had a documented past of similar behaviors to the ones being alleged as the cause leading to his death. The media fell into place siding with the religious support of a young black male and has blocked every attempt to update the story with truth or facts.

At the end of the day, it should be the truth and the facts which SHOULD bring a conclusion to the case. Unfortunately, other factors are in the way.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[khallow]

Has it occurred to you that justifiable homicides aren't the problem?

Well, researching the issue through the power of Google, that was a primary claim of the problems with the Florida law, namely a tripling of justifiable homicides over the past few years. I haven't seen any other arguments, backed by evidence rather than anecdotes (this, for example, is an anecdote story), to indicate that there is a problem.

I sense you think there is some problem. Why don't you show it first before we continue this discussion?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[mr100percent]

Baloney. The reason the story became national news was because a white guy chased down an unarmed black kid despite cops saying not to, shot him dead, and the police let him go with not even an arrest. That was what made it a headline. Had the roles been reversed, I doubt Martin would have gotten off so easy.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kid shot while trying to beat a man to death.

Please, tell me how that isn't actually correct?

FTFY

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Maxo-Texas]

Wow- don't see the troll mod for your post even tho I think your position is really exaggerated from reality.

From the way things are going, without the guns this would have been a severe beating of a overweight older guy by an athletic younger guy. Guns are an equalizer.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[khallow]

Stalking and harassing is not a legal action.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Cederic]

Indeed. I was translating Glock27's suggestion that advancing towards potential harm can be legal into the specifics of this particular case.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly did he 'initiate' violence, when the other guy CHASED AFTER HIM WITH A GUN?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[BasilBrush]

If you think about it (a high standard, apparently) you will find a ton of gray area in that. There are a lot of legal, and quite responsible actions, that fall under "advancing towards potential harm".

And lots that are not, yet provide a shield for deliberate murder.

Your username shows your priority, and why you don't think about this issue rationally.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[BasilBrush]

Your argument against gun control is so that people have the ability to shoot the cops? Who's masturbating?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about dying? Only you. Besides, you wouldn't see my post if I posted with my actual name. You're too much an intellectual coward and "blocked" yourself from seeing them.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the bag of jewelry taken away from Martin in school?

Was it his cut of burglaries? Could he have been the scout for a theft group of high school kids?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[sumdumass]

Breaking no laws does not suspend any suspicion of intent of breaking laws.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone including the media I think has been out to smear the dead and discredit the first witnesses to this case from the beginning.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stand your ground is a license to violence. In the last analysis this was a teenager, much lighter in weight than the one left standing (with his gun). Further, he had no gun to "defend himself" and all that. I have never thought this was a plot to divide whites and blacks. Injustice divides people. If I am not mistaken, a white person or two said (whatever they said). Otherwise, they would have plotted to make the kid look bad as some are doing now. Martin cannot speak beyond the grave literally to defend himself or not. Thus, I invoke heaven the just judge to do it for him. If minors (was he still a minor) are made to expose records such as social media and school records, what happened to the law that protected minors. I am sure that most things happen to reveal things about ourselves (a true selves) that might lie hidden except it be exposed by something greater than ourselves. Everything has a course to run, Zimmerman's is running now, and everybody else's is too that has anything (even a thought) to do with this subject.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[swalve]

As opposed to the conservative media lies, where they use the yadda yadda defense:

1-Upstanding citizen sees a suspicious character and calls the police.
2-yadda yadda yadda
3-Upstanding citizen is viciously attacked by the suspicious character and bravely defends himself with tragic results. (but that's what you get when you act suspiciously, amiright?)

That only works if you ignore what happened in the middle. Which is, Zimmerman got out of his car. Why would a person get out of the relative safety of his car when there was a dangerous person milling about?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[swalve]

Unless Martin committed an act in furtherance of the laws he could have intended to commit, he was free to wander around intending to commit a crime.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Smartcowboy]

Are you implying that using drug and being a theft are enough to get shot in the back while walking on the street? How the lifestyle of the victim is even relevant to the actions of the aggressor?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[IHateEverybody]

Yeah, I get it. When you're in legal trouble, put the victim on trial.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[erroneus]

When your defense is "protecting yourself from an attacker" then yes. When the defending question is "was he fighting or in fear for his life?" then yes, that is the appropriate response. If someone tells you the story of an encounter, are you not curious as to whether or not the defendant's claims are true? Or, instead are you only concerned that the victim is dead and you presume is blameless for the encounter and its result?

I am in favor of getting at some truth beyond reasonable doubt. If you seek to limit the evidence presented in defense, then, in the words of Samsung's lawyers, "Why have a trial at all?!"

One of the driving factors behind the design and intent of the US justice system is to give the accused the most fair trial process possible. It might disturb someone to consider the notion that defendants have rights... that is, until you become a defendant yourself eh?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's about shooting a drugged up punk, who went looking for homes to rob, got seen, and decided to beat the crap out of his spotter.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

No, I didn't mention his race, so why did you?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a punk got shot for trying to beat the crap out of a decent person.

Unless it takes 3 hours to find an ice tea stand in a residential neighborhood.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[IHateEverybody]

I have no problem with the notion that defendants have rights. I do however find it interesting, not to mention tiresome, when people who are in legal trouble choose to put their alleged victims on trial. Even if Trayvon Martin was a complete asshole, it doesn't give Zimmerman a right to appoint himself as his judge, jury, and executioner. And even if he was "defending himself" at some point, it doesn't necessarily justify deadly force.

Even more annoying is when people tout their own ethnic identity when they are accused of a crime. One of the cops who beat up Reginald Denny for example cited having a Mexican girlfriend to claim he was not racist. OJ Simpson suddenly embraced his African-American heritage when he was accused of a double murder. And now Zimmerman discovers that he's one-eight latino or something. It's all very a convenient way to obfuscate that a kid is dead and this guy may have been responsible and deserves to do time is he was indeed responsible.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[sumdumass]

Sure, and whoever suspected him of about to be committing a crime is free to follow him to observe his actions.

Suspicion kind of works that way. When someone who is new to an area and does things that look suspicious, do not be surprised if someone follows and watches them. It might be different if you lived there for the last 30 years or something.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[erroneus]

Paint for me, if you will, a method by which you could accomplish an effective defense without putting the victim's own actions and character in question?

Circumstantial evidence appears to back Zimmerman's story. But that's not enough for some people. So under this situation, because the victim is a legal minor, should we simply accept the fate of conviction simply because we don't want to blame the victim?

If you were robbed at gunpoint, let's say, and you fought back and won leaving the victim dead... and the victim was also a young black male (keep in mind that this scenario has played out numerous times in fact and in reality -- please don't deny that young black males have performed armed robbery) would you give up your case because it would might seem "unseemly" to accuse the dead? YOU KILLED A CHILD!!! Right?

In this case, the factors are simply not clear. The victim cannot speak, but the public is speaking for him in the form of doctored photos, out of date photos, ommissions of various sorts and, of course, out-right denial.

Please tell me how a fair trial could occur unless the defense is allowed to substantiate his case?

Zimmerman is visibly hispanic. But the ethnicity of any of these parties isn't entirely relevant except for the fact that he fit the very profile of the criminals which were, at the time, visiting their neighborhood. It is the public outcries which are making this a racial issue. Want to blame someone? Look to the people who make the initial claims of racial bias.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[misexistentialist]

I meant that any gun control proposal that doesn't also include disarming police seems more like fulfilling a masochistic fantasy than improving public safety. Of course unarmed police is a crazy idea, because each person being able to protect his life with the best tool is just common sense.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[cdmsr]

That and the lead officer -- an experienced homicide detective -- was about to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter when a state's attorney (a political position) overrode him because the state's Republican administration had a vested political interest in preserving the 'Stand Your Ground' law. "Stand Your Ground" was one of many reactionary conservative initiatives crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a shadowy group that brings together corporate henchmen with conservative lawmakers from all levels of government to create 'wishlist' legislative agendas. I think people were also outraged that, despite having his cel phone, the cops waited three days to contact Trayvon's parents while his body lay in the morgue and that Zimmermann ignored explicit instructions from the 911 operator not to follow Martin but, instead, took a loaded handgun and went after him -- an act that the Republican sponsor of the 'Stand Your Ground' law said negated any protection from prosecution under its standards. http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[cdmsr]

The "black person" was seventeen years old. I don't know what planet you are from but in every jurisdiction in the USA, planet Earth, that is a child, you fucking brain-damaged putz. You won't be taken seriously by any thinking person until you master the time-honored strategem of accomplished rightwing facist motherfuckers everywhere and disguise your fundamental lack of humanity and honor.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[RocketRabbit]

But he didn't get shot "for buying iced tea." It's amazing that you can look at the facts and mis-interpret them deliberately in order to come up with what is easily proved to be a bald-faced lie.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[philip.paradis]

A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[bfandreas]

But he didn't get shot "for buying iced tea." It's amazing that you can look at the facts and mis-interpret them deliberately in order to come up with what is easily proved to be a bald-faced lie.

Well,if you put words in my mouth and complain about what they mean just to call me a liar then imagination fails me as to what I should call you.

Here's what I said:
...a kid got shot buying ice tea.
And here is what you say I said:
...shot for buying icetea

Accusing me of dishonesty while acting like you just did is a bit rich.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[cdmsr]

You'd better watch your ass: If Belial notices you using his name to post your crap, he's liable to make a special trip from Hell to skin your ass and mash your raisins. And how is it hard to say who was the aggressor? Martin didn't know Zimmerman existed until he spotted him following him in his SUV. Martin even hid to avoid him but Zimmerman kept 'patrolling' -- against the instructions from the 911 operator -- until he found him in a different part of the community. The aggressor is obvious. Zimmerman is an asshole with anger management issues. He had been arrested for assaulting his girlfriend and was sentenced to take anger management counseling. Any man that strikes a woman is a cowardly piece of shit, just the kind of lunatic to go fishing for an opportunity to kill. On a seperate occasion he was arrested for drunkenly interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duty. In some fit of delusions of grandeur, he believed he could exercise some nonexistent authority. (The closest he'd ever come to actually having any authority was a short stint in a police training course. He flunked out. Everything that has come to light about Zimmerman reveals a weak-minded, weak-willed miscreant that actively sought the opportunity to do damage and finally forced a confrontation with someone who had not so much as given him a dirty look, who didn't know he existed before being hunted and confronted by this murderous assole. He'll get along just fine in the Florida State Prison System, a/k/a, karma. So you wrap yourself in your comfy blanket of racist delusion and hope karma doesn't function for you. Now get on back to editing The George Zimmerman Fan Club newsletter.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[RocketRabbit]

So he was buying iced tea from Zimmerman on the street at night?

He got shot while prowling.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Mashiki]

Are you implying that using drug and being a theft are enough to get shot in the back while walking on the street? How the lifestyle of the victim is even relevant to the actions of the aggressor?

Believing what the media is telling you huh? He wasn't shot in the back, he was shot 24-36" in the front. The lifestyle of the person who is dead is indeed relevant to it. As it sets a "chain of character" and this is why you don't believe what the media tells you. And you stop watching CSI and trying to pretend you understand law.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Belial6]

Apparently, in your world the racist is the guy that sees the media reporting inaccurate information, and thus concludes it is impossible for people that are getting their information from the inaccurate reports to tell who was the aggressor. And, the non-racist is the one that just chooses the person with the correct colored skin. Oh what a topsy turvy world you live in....

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Belial6]

Wow, you are a pretty hard core racist.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. A WorldNutDaily link gets you an "Insightful" on slashdot?

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[tehcyder]

You mean the one that *was* him, and only showed up in rightwing blogs and news. Because the media had a narrative to carry? Just like the GP said. How funny that is huh. So, has the grand parts of the media let you in on about his use of codeine, dxm, and various rounds of theft yet? Or are you still waiting for them to tell you.

I wasn't aware that, even in the US, the fact that a black shooting victim may have been a petty thief and minor drug user was a recognised defence in a murder trial.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[tehcyder]

"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.

Yeah, it's just an extension of the old rugby tactic of getting your retaliation in first, i.e. before the opponents have had a chance to actually hurt any of your team first.

Although at least on the rugby pitch you're restricted to boots, heads and fists, not fucking guns.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[tehcyder]

What I love about this is that the kid they're trying to paint as some psycho gangsta didn't have a gun.

Even here in the UK a moderately serious gang member would likely be armed with a knife at least and not have to rely on hitting someone's head against the road, I can't believe in the US it's harder to find a weapon.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[parkinglot777]

How about "advancing forwards with an intention" instead? No one knows about the intention unless you are him or the boy. Regardless the intention, why would he follow the boy when he was told not to? That's the point of the whole situation. Maybe it is from his stupidity, but he must face the consequence regardless.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic self-defense doctrine already allows for self-defense in every situation EXCEPT when you can retreat with complete safety. The only thing Stand Your Ground adds is that you can shoot someone that is no longer a threat to you. Everything else is already covered.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Raenex]

So he was buying iced tea from Zimmerman on the street at night?

No, he bought it from a convenience store, and you can watch the video yourself. It's been released and you can easily find it online.

He got shot while prowling.

You don't know that, and have presented no evidence in support of it. The evidence points to him going home after making a convenience store purchase. Also, the fact remains that you still put in extra words in a quote that changed the meaning of what the original poster said, all while complaining about "look at the facts and mis-interpret them deliberately". You're a hypocrite who can't even get the facts straight, let alone interpret them.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[phlinn]

Carrying a gun is not threatening with a gun. He didn't run after him waving his gun around.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[phlinn]

You may be entitled to your own opninions, but not your own facts. Zimmerman did NOT continue following Martin after the operator said he didn't need to follow... because he had already lost him.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Zimmerman left his car this "stand your ground" defense went out the window. Seems like you Zimmerman supporters want to forget that

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[BasilBrush]

Of course unarmed police is a crazy idea

There's nothing crazy about it at all. The vast majority of UK police don't carry firearms. And the murder and firearms offence rates in the UK are a fraction of US ones.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that using drug and being a theft are enough to get shot in the back while walking on the street? How the lifestyle of the victim is even relevant to the actions of the aggressor?

They are looking at the aggressor's tweets and his phone call to see does it provide a reason as to why he attacked Zimmerman.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stand your ground" is a very reasonable doctrine, it simply allows self-defense without retreating first.

It appears to be interpreted by the gun lobby as allowing killing someone after deliberately advancing towards potential harm.

Treyvon Martin was unarmed.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was returning to his truck to go about his lawful business when he was viciously assaulted from behind by Treyvon Martin.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[RocketRabbit]

You can believe what you want, but I know what the facts say.

Merely having Treyvon on video buying iced tea does not prove that he wasn't a gangbanging thug out on the prowl.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Raenex]

You can believe what you want, but I know what the facts say.

You've consistently gotten the facts wrong. You're a hypocrite who is the very thing you complained about.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can believe what you want, but I know what the facts say.

Merely having Treyvon on video buying iced tea does not prove that he wasn't a gangbanging thug out on the prowl.

Correct. You also need cough medicine and Skittles to make purple drank.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Stuarticus]

What happens when two people stand their ground? Answer: stupidity.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that if you follow in your vehicle and then pursue them on foot and confront them you are not engaged in self defense. If you are accosted by someone while in a vehicle and you choose to get out of the vehicle you are no longer able to claim self defense either. Wait until the facts hit a courtroom.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have that backwards. If the goal was to make white people fear black people, they would not have printed photos of an 11 year old child. You are right that it was to create racial divide, but it was to rial black people to hate white people, and to kick in the 'white guilt' in white people. The whole thing was portrayed as a big bad evil white man shooting a poor defenseless black child. Of course, the black person wasn't a child, and the white guy was Mexican. Who was the aggressor is hard to say, but what is clear is that this wasn't an attempt to rally white folks against blacks.

===============
The dead child you depict was unarmed. He was in his teenager body, not muscular and not able to defend himself over a much more aggressive and more physical Zimmerman. The defense can do its best to get a reduced manslaughter case, but Zimmerman was guilty of wanting to be a cop, without cop training or ability to not act as a hero. Zimmerman wanted to be a hero so he could use his gun. Too bad he had to kill a child with it.

When there is a robbery that I see in process, even if I was armed, I would call the police. It is not my duty to take up arms when I personally was not attacked.
There was no robbery, just a kid wearing a hoodie jacket. Zimmerman has himself to blame for the events. The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the kid was a girl, Zimmerman would have still shot and killed her.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not ice tea. Facts are unquestionably important when describing and event of this nature. Right-wing pundits have no more involvement in this than any other group and in fact, it has not been the pundit, it has been the ignorant and ill informed. Go ahead and hide behind your silly words you liberal red diaper doper baby.

Re:Will Zimmerman get justice?

[dfenstrate]

it doesn't give Zimmerman a right to appoint himself as his judge, jury, and executioner.

Zimmerman was defending himself from an ongoing attack, and there's physical evidence and witness testimony to corroborate that.
Do you think an attacker would accept a call of 'time out' so that there might be an investigation, trial, and punishment?
Should a person allow themselves to be beaten to a bloody pulp, and perhaps murdered, so cooler heads can later determine if he was actually being attacked?

Blame the victim much

[mabhatter654]

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.

Re:Blame the victim much

[ArchieBunker]

In most criminal trials they can't bring up what a scumbag the guy has been in the past. Wonder whats going on here.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Pinhedd]

The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Pinhedd]

That's true about the defendant, but we're talking about the victim here. It's much easier to get character evidence entered about the victim than it is about the defendant.

Re:Blame the victim much

[dkleinsc]

Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.

What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.

I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

But he was bragging. Bragging about punching bus drivers in the face. He was also seen in YouTube videos refereeing Fight Club style fights.

You can read some of his tweets here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

And if you think someone if blaming the victim, you're right. They are blaming Zimmerman for defending himself. Read the NYT article carefully. Every article from the NYT and most media outlets always make reference to Trayvon being unarmed as if that means you should never be shot or be the recipient of deadly force. The also say Trayvon "hurt" Zimmerman's head. Hurt? Hurt is when you trip and skid your knee. Hurt is not what happens when someone is slamming your head into a concrete pavement.

The courts have *long* recognized that deadly force can be used against unarmed attacker(s) under certain conditions.

Again, all part of the narrative put for by most media outlets --especially the anti-gun NYT-- that despise guns in the hands of civilians and those who use them for self defense.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because everyone who listens to hip-hop or trains MMA is a violent thug! Maybe he played some violent video games too! They should dig up his Call Of Duty account and see how many kills he has! Or maybe he has an Orc character in that satanic WoW game!

Re:Blame the victim much

[nomad63]

No it is not "blame the victim" move. It is putting all relevant facts into the daylight move in my opinion. If you are a proven aggressor against law enforcement or any other thing for that matter and if you were in a conflict with this group, it is the other party's right to present what and who you are with all publicly available information. Otherwise, we are going into the gray area of a homeowner shooting a thief inside his house and getting sued for the thief's injuries.

Re:Blame the victim much

[niko9]

Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.

What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him.

Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.

P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.

Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill

Re:Blame the victim much

[91degrees]

It's the way the system works. It's how it's designed. If a fact is relevant, then it's admissible. The defence is arguing that this is relevant. Given that he's going to be locked away from society for a very long time and have his life ruined, I don't think it's too much to ask to be absolutely sure that his actions were totally unjustified.

It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.

You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

the significant majority of them are violent thugs

Re:Blame the victim much

[gbjbaanb]

Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.

I guess the facts of the case are too tied up in partisan opinion and vested interest to make a good verdict happen.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).

Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.

It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense. There is simply no reason for anyone to take the life of another human being.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeal the Second Amendment it is deadly. No one should have the power to take life away from another even in defense of their own. Due Process must apply.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Genda]

That doesn't change the fact that when Zimmerman reported he was FOLLOWING the kid, the police told him to stand down, and he said "No, I'm not letting him get away." It was Zimmerman that instigated the situation, brought deadly force to the scene, and made a host of claims that simply don't stand up under the slightest scrutiny. Trayvon could have been a howling asshole, a pretty common behavior these days. If thats all it takes to justify deadly force, then this nation is in serious trouble. You simply can't stalk people, hunt them down, then shoot them and claim self defense, it does't wash.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jjohnson]

Do you believe that Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by 70 pounds, was really supine beneath him? That Martin could sneak up on a man holding a gun in a well-lit intersection, and take him down? That the reason Zimmerman got out of his car was, as he said, to see where he was, which was in the middle of the neighbourhood he'd been patrolling for the last six months and lived in?

I don't believe a fucking word Zimmerman says, in part because the injuries he claims to have don't show up on the video of him at the police station that night, and his visible demeanor with the police indicates that he was uninjured. But more than that, his story just reeks of implausibility.

He didn't shoot Martin for looking suspicious. He followed and engaged because Martin looked suspicious, which in this case means "walking while black in my neighborhood, carrying Skittles".

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Nonsense. You don't really know what is in all of that. The court didn't rule whether or not it is admissible. They just ruled that there may be something admissible in there so the defense should have access to it. For all you know, there may be something in there about him hating the guy who shot him and wanting to kill him. I doubt it. But, if so, it would certainly be pretty convincing evidence if there was.

Likewise, if the guy who shot him had tweeted stuff about wishing he had the chance to kill someone, that would be equally relevant.

And, it is not entirely clear who the victim is in this situation.

Re:Blame the victim much

[stewbacca]

This argument makes no sense. Even if Trayvon Martin DID approach him and even if he assaulted him, the entire thing was provoked by Zimmerman. You know what doesn't happen if you don't strap a pistol to your belt and tail people doing nothing wrong? That's right, you don't end up being charged with 2nd degree murder.

Re:Blame the victim much

[mysidia]

Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.

There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because everyone who listens to hip-hop or trains MMA is a violent thug! Maybe he played some violent video games too! They should dig up his Call Of Duty account and see how many kills he has! Or maybe he has an Orc character in that satanic WoW game!

You forgot to comment on the relevance of being suspended. I've got your back, though.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Baloroth]

Yeah, because everyone who listens to hip-hop or trains MMA is a violent thug! Maybe he played some violent video games too! They should dig up his Call Of Duty account and see how many kills he has! Or maybe he has an Orc character in that satanic WoW game!

Not what OP said or probably meant. Nice strawman, though!

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

This is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read on Slashdot

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Zimmerman weighed all of ten pounds more than Martin, but you seem incredibly misinformed and about 8 months behind on this. Try to catch up

Re:Blame the victim much

[SecurityGuy]

If Zimmerman outwieghed Martin by 70 pounds, it was obviously not 70 pounds of muscle. So, yeah, it's quite possible the pudgy guy got knocked to the ground. The video you refer to wasn't very good. Other pictures clearly show injuries. One thing everyone wants to ignore is that injuries take time to show. I took a very hard blow to the back that left a tiny scratch. Two days later I had an impressive bruise 15" or more across.

IMO, there's no arguing that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted Martin. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. If Martin jumped Zimmerman, this is clear self defense. If not, it's murder. Which was it? I have no idea. Good luck, jury. I hope you get it right.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you work for the media?

thug life != hip-hop
Relevance of MMA is his confidence and ability to attack in the way defense says Zimmerman was attacked.

Violent video games is an emotional appeal to people on this site.

And you completely ignored his school record.

Re:Blame the victim much

[mysidia]

If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable.

Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.

That is sometimes, but not always the case.

We can't even use past performance to reliably predict stock prices, and the behavior of individual humans has far more uncertainty.

It would be quite unfair to all involved to rely on just a story alone, and a history of past behavior. It's quite believable that the "poster boy for good kids everywhere" could decide do something wrong, due to known or unknown motivation; or that someone who often did bad things did not do anything wrong in this instance.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

The Florida law makes no exception for provocation. It doesn't matter. The law is written poorly, but that doesn't make you right

Re:Blame the victim much

[jjohnson]

My mistake: Zimmerman weighed only 42 lbs. more than Martin, who was weighed at 158 on the autopsy table, while Zimmerman was weighed at 200 on the night of the shooting.

Try to catch up.

Re:Blame the victim much

[wonkey_monkey]

being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.

Nice blanket assumption. Ever been in that exact situation?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

He was suspended for being late and having weed. So being late for class or smoking a little weed are grounds for a vigilante execution according to you? Maybe a 100 years ago that would have been a good excuse to get together a lynch-mob but times have changed grandpa.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Multiple friends and himself put him at 170 the night of the shooting. The weigh listed was on his license, which can be months or years out of date. You're still wrong about just about everything in your post though. So try to keep up.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because everyone who listens to hip-hop or trains MMA is a violent thug! Maybe he played some violent video games too! They should dig up his Call Of Duty account and see how many kills he has! Or maybe he has an Orc character in that satanic WoW game!

Not what OP said or probably meant. Nice strawman, though!

The OP said "If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable."

This doesn't imply, it outright explicitly states the hypothesis that fistfights, 'Thug Life', and MMA(the ignorance is astounding) makes it more probable that he instigated the confrontation that cost him his life. There is no caveat or mea culpa saying that Travyon was some 'special case'. Ergo, one would expect to come to the conclusion that by presenting this case, the defence thinks that those activities make any reasonable person violent, and prone to assault whereby mortal self defence is warranted.

Which is profoundly ignorant.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This is not about blaming the victim. A trial's purpose is to find out the truth of the facts...the jury decides what did and did not happen. To limit the evidence to portraying only one side of the story—even if Zimmerman is a complete tool bag—subverts the whole justice process. As much as I want to demonize Zimmerman, if the facts bare-out that Martin was also no angel, then that is relevant and the defense not only has a right to that evidence but has a right to adduce that evidence before the fact-finder (the jury).

Further, the comment about Miranda warnings in the OP are just idiotic. We need Slashdot legal editors. Miranda warnings inform the suspect about the consequences of the suspect's own statements. It has nothing to do with the victim's statements. Also, on the same note, I have seen one error on /. over and fucking over: There is a difference between a Florida/California/whatever court and a federal court in Florida/California/wherever. This particular post does not have this problem, but I constantly see headlines that say "A California court...." when the post is talking about the damn Ninth Circuit. Get a damn legal editor.....

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

So following someone gives them the right to assault you? But being assaulted isn't enough reason to defend yourself ?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you're an idiot. Go back to your ivory tower.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

This nation is in serious trouble - if you knew him, you knew the kid was going to be shot one day. Only a matter of time for his attitude type. We all just hoped he might survive the first shooting so he had a chance to change his ways. Didn't work out that way.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

NYT piece here listing him at 170 lbs: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all At his booking he was listed at 185, but weight can fluctuate, especially under high stress conditions, which I think you'd agree he'd been under. Either way, it's not like Zimmerman was a grown man fighting a toddler. A 17 year old football player is going to be strong and in great shape. That doesn't make Zimmerman right or even in a moral grey area for what he did, but quit trying to portray someone like Martin as a helpless child.

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

Police didn't tell him shit, a 911 dispatcher did (hint, you are under no legal obligation to do a damn thing that a dispatcher tells you), his only response was "Ok". In 2 different posts you've made up completely different quotes of his, you can't even keep your false statements consistent even minutes apart.

Following someone isn't stalking them, it isn't hunting them down, stop using loaded phrases. If he suspects someone of illegal doing, he can legally follow them, if someone else initiates a physical attack on him, he's allowed to defend himself, even if it's with a gun.

The only thing that doesn't wash is your ability to fabricate every bit of "evidence" you've claimed.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

weigh listed was on his license

????

WTF? He said, "Weight on the Autopsy table".

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

the entire thing was provoked by Zimmerman.

You're selectively choosing a primary cause. Zimmerman tailing Martin did not "provoke" Martin into assaulting him.

I find it very provoking when a security guard asks me to show a receipt for something for which I've already paid. He has no authority to demand I show the receipt and I am not doing anything wrong. But it still doesn't give me the right to assault him.

Here's what happens in a neighborhood that bends over for criminals: Break-ins keep occuring. The criminals grow bolder. Eventually someone, maybe even your wife and daughters, are home when the next break-in occurs. Bad things happen.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

Unfortunately, "Turning around and swinging at someone who's annoying you," is not a proper response to any sort provocation, short of actual self defense against a physical assault, and the law in Florida makes no allowance for whether or not you were "provoked" into assaulting someone.

The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.

According to Zimmerman's story, all he did was follow Martin so he could report where he was when the police arrived. If that is true, there is nothing illegal about that, even if Martin viewed it as "annoying" or "provocative."

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Sorry for the illiterate morons who can't grasp context, I guess I should have said Zimmerman weighed 170.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Onuma]

I think everyone can agree that Zimmerman probably should not have pursued Martin any further once he called in the local authorities. He may have been stalking, he may have been simply trying to keep an eye on the kid to make sure he didn't do anything in that neighborhood which was illegal or wrong - the court case will bring that portion to light, if the prosecution and defense are on the ball.

However the altercation started, it quickly went one-sided (as most altercations do) and ended up with the defendant using deadly force to stop his attacker. He was on his back, he'd had a large laceration to the back of his head from falling and/or being pounded on the concrete. Those are two things which if taken alone, would already warrant the use of escalated force.
The rule is that you escalate force as necessary to thwart the opposite force, using the means available to you. If you possess pepper spray, a truncheon, and a sidearm then your escalation of force is pretty obvious, as it would be in the case of an everyday law enforcement officer. If all you have is a pistol, then you go from fists to lethal force instantly when a certain threshold is crossed by the assailant. Since you can't be sure that the guy who smashed your skull into the concrete and is mounted on top of you will stop at any point, you pull the trigger and keep pulling until you're out of ammo or the threat is neutralized.

Personally, I think the prosecution overcharged this case. Murder Two can be extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt when there multiple eye witnesses; on a dark/rainy night with little direct testimony it may be nearly impossible . If they'd really wanted a shot at putting Zimmerman behind bars, they'd have gone for manslaughter.

Re:Blame the victim much

[thaylin]

Except you willfully ignore the part about getting into trouble for fighting and other things, and just leave it at what he likes to listen to and watch. Him getting into trouble for fighting plays into the assumption of the previous 2 and makes it not profoundly ignorant.

Re:Blame the victim much

[thaylin]

If I yell and curse at you, that can be considered provoking, If I yell at you and you come charging at me trying to harm me, then I have a right to defend myself from you.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, bullshit. This is simple discovery. Nothing in the list has been ruled admissible. The defense is demanding access to it like they do in every modern case to determine whether they even want to bother with submitting anything to be ruled admissible. Again: manufactured outrage is manufactured... as it has been throughout this entire case.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

He was also caught with a backpack full of women's jewelry and a pry bar, but that's not a crime so they used other things he'd done to suspend him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... actually... it probably does clear him.

It sounds like you did the right thing in your case as you presented it, but as a juror, you should not let your ... inappropriate valuation of human life sway your opinion in an issue of law and justice.

We are entitled to self defense by law.
We are entitled to a presumption of innocence by law.

The defendor, and aggressor -- are both entitled to self defense by law. But it gets *complicated* the moment someone tries to retreat.

And if there is even a damned /doubt/ in a criminal case, by law, you should find the defendant not guilty.

Let's be clear -- there are virtually no witnesses in this case. The only person that could give a counter argument is dead. If it was a murder, it could very well border on the perfect crime. The phone witness is not reliable. The parents are suspect at best -- but are trying very hard to remove all 'reasonable doubt' -- they won't, they can't, and they know it.

Social media knows it. The media did their best to taint the jury pool to try to cause some LA style riots in Florida, and fortunately cooler heads prevailed.

Your...disgustingly sterotypically liberal false framing of the situation as an aggressive pursuit and murder is not only fallacious, but also irrelevant from everything but a moral analysis. Even if your....absurd assertion of aggression was correct, it doesn't matter legally in this case.

I can pick a fight with somebody, and I can legally kill them after picking that fight. I can even do so in a manner where I draw a gun in a fistfight.

Yes, it gets *exceptionally* complicated, and it's an incredibly narrow set of circumstances in which that could be lawful -- and it is an exception, not the rule -- as it should be.

There is rampant racism in this case -- and that shows in the crappy police investigation that happened initially. Not in zimmerman's actions.

But based on Zimmerman's indications so far -- his defense would have held up even in a situation where he had picked the fight, much less if it was a mere approach, or even had he utilized fighting words.

Because when someone has you down, and is striking you against a hard surface such as the ground -- much less... concrete -- that constitutes a lethal weapon, being used with lethal force -- by a person that is demonstrably angry and dangerous, in a situation in which there exists no way whatsoever to retreat. In that situation, a defending party can get away with pretty much any type of force whatsoever.

With the very little evidence available, Zimmerman not only should probably go free after a criminal trial, but if they can show the Martin's been in any fights in the past five years -- the court should probably go out of its way to issue an apology -- because THAT is exactly the sort of thing that should have come out in a police investigation

Now, the real...clusterfuck of this is going to be the civil issue -- martin's parents needed a criminal trial filed in order to be able to eligible for most of the civil damages other under Florida laws.... *that* analysis actually has a chance to be interesting.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

It would be quite unfair to all involved to rely on just a story alone, and a history of past behavior.

But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?

I'd much rather see the investigation conducted, personally. I'd hate to think that our justice system will basically exonerate you by default - as long as you kill the other people who could contradict your account.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.

oh yeah.. Call 911, while some bozo is beating on you... Dunno what planet YOU live on, but here on Earth, that just may get you DEAD.. Or even if the cops are called and do actually *show* up, they're probably gonna either arrest you both and/or beat both of you worse than the perp was doing... No thanks, no cops for me here on planet earth... perhaps cops are a bit better on your planet...

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

Someone else pointed out it's obviously a case of trying to make whites afraid of blacks just in time for the election. Tweets are unrelated to a self defense case, as the defendant would have no knowledge of those tweets before killing the unarmed child, so they are as relevant as calling Martin's mom to the stand and asking about the animals he tortured (none, but you can imply he did in his mother's responses). It's a Chewbacca defense that us usually disallowed, so why allowed now?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Genda]

Its called "paraphrasing", if you need the call verbatim here is the actual call. In it, you will hear Mr. Zimmerman being far more concerned the black kid would "Get away" than the possibility that someone's life might be at stake, and that the dispatcher clearly informs him to leave it to the police. And though he is not legally required to obey the dispatcher (or even an officer had he been speaking to one) that places the onus of the subsequent events on his choice to pursue and ultimately precipitate a deadly shooting. He willfully placed himself in what was for him a threatening situation and then chose deadly force to resolve it, and I'm sorry, but the account in question simply doesn't make sense. He claims injuries he didn't have. If he lied about those, then how can we take the rest of his story with any seriousness. The problem here is not the gun. It is the vigilante and that is why we have the rule of law. Let me put this another way. If I take a bus to the middle of a ghetto, get out and walk down the street, and someone get's up in my face for being in the wrong place, and I get scared because this looks like its escalating to physical violence, do I have the right to shoot this man, and now that I've terrorized an entire neighborhood by that logic don't they all have the right shoot me? The kid was running away from perceived danger, it was right there on the call. Zimmerman was stalking the kid, and he had the gun. What else matters. He was free at every moment up to the final confrontation to walk away, only this black kid wasn't going to get away. And he didn't.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Artifakt]

A bit hyperbolic, but it touches on several essentials. The causes of Martin's suspensions have been revealed repeatedly, and they are not violence related, but some people on Slashdot are willing to post speculations that there's something beyond that. When you keep looking for the thing that bolsters your opinion, and it's just not there, just maybe it's time to question your opinon instead of doubling down on it.

      Beyond that, there was a point where the police locally knew a few things and only those things, for certain. At later times, other facts came to light, and the situation became more complex, but in the first few hours after the shooting, there was a definite point where all the police had to go on were these facts:
1. They knew they had a homicide, and who did it.
2. They knew that the person who did it was claiming it was justifiable self defense.
3. They knew there were major flaws in the shooter's story - changes in the range the encounter supposedly took place at, changes in what the suspect said to dispatch, what he claimed dispatch said to him, how the deceased person had attacked him, what blows were thrown, what blows landed where, and so on. They knew that their possible murderer had repeatedly changed his story.

      So why didn't they charge him right there and then?

        All debate about what has been revealed weeks or months later ignores this simple question. There was a definite point where George Zimmerman was a strong suspect for a charge of 1st degree murder. Most detectives would have been willing to insist on holding him for at least the standard 24, and go before a judge to apply for a warrent to search Mr. Zimmerman's home. Many would have been willing to get the judge up at 3 AM, if needed, on the strength of what they had at that particular point. Why not in the Martin case?

Re:Blame the victim much

[flimflammer]

You are the perfect personification of what is wrong with this case.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

If by "them" you mean teens, then yes, most have a history of violence. It's part of growing up and puberty. Especially when you go looking at the music they listened to, movies they've seen and TV they watch.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even that. Read the transcript. The 911 dispatcher said we don't "need" you to do that. Sort of like when you hold a door open for someone, or start cleaning up your own spill while a guest and your host says "Oh, you don't need to do that". Nobody ever said "Stop following him and wait for the police"

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

From the information released so far, I've been in a similar enough situation to believe that Zimmerman is lying.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA helped write the Stand Your Ground Law so yeah they had nothing to do with it.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

So following someone gives them the right to assault you?

yes, in most cases.

But being assaulted isn't enough reason to defend yourself ?

not if you initiated the violence.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

Then there's agreement on all sides. Zimmerman was quietly "charging" towards Martin with the intention to cause harm. Martin defended himself. Zimmerman then killed him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Martin can only be the aggressor if you edit the timeline of the event so that it starts with Zimmerman standing on the street and ends with Martin dead on the ground, and even then only if you believe Martin's side of the story exactly. Otherwise, all the facts and Zimmerman's own statements start with an armed, grown man in a vehicle chasing a teenage boy through the streets and cornering him, then lying to him about whether he was chasing him, then acting in a way that might lead Martin to think he was about to be shot. It was unwise and uncalled for and led to a confrontation that left the unarmed teenager dead. Zimmerman's actions were foolish and irresponsible and someone is dead as a result. This is at least manslaughter.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

Police dispatchers are employees of the "police department" and thus "police" for any reasonable definition. Dispatchers are not law enforcement officers, but they are police. Some places even swear them in as police.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

I'm curious where you go from "you should call the police if someone is following you and harassing you," to "you should call the police when someone jumps on you and starts beating you."

Because that's not what I wrote at all, and I'm curious how your reading comprehension went so wrong so quickly.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

He's also said from day one that he was chasing Martin, and that when Martin approached him, he didn't identify himself to Martin and lied about whether he was following him. He also was wearing a gun and clothing that would have left the gun obvious. He also says that he turned away from Martin and went for his phone. He has also stated publicly, although I'm not sure it was in his statement immediately after the killing, that Martin tried to grab his gun, which shows that Martin was aware of his gun. Anyone capable of envisioning the situation at all and putting themselves in Martin's place should be able to see that, even if Zimmerman's story is exactly true in every detail, Martin was very likely to have believed that Zimmerman was about to pull his gun and shoot Martin. This makes Martin's actions self-defense under the "Stand your ground" law and makes Zimmerman's actions that created the situation manslaughter at least.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

From the description I've seen, there was one shot to the chest at about 3 feet distance. Not consistent with a panic shooting, nor with someone in grappling distance. Though Wikipedia lists the distance as "1 to 18 inches". But still one and only one shot. And no knuckle bruising noted, so a pummeling of Zimmerman by Martin doesn't seem likely. For all we know, Zimmerman caused his own wounds after to justify his killing. But we do know that his actions were not consistent with what a "reasonable person" would have done.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

But a tweet by Martin has no impact on whether Zimmerman was justified. The facts of the case do (who did what), not trying to impeach the character of the deceased. Hopefully, the prosecution will be able to use this peek into private lives to show the pattern of aggression by Zimmerman.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

So following someone gives them the right to assault you?

yes, in most cases.

But being assaulted isn't enough reason to defend yourself ?

not if you initiated the violence.

Neither of your responses are correct.

Violence is never a legal response to a nonviolent provocation. Sticks-and-stones and all that. Also, picking a fight (assault and battery) that turns into your victim trying to kill you allows for you to defend yourself against.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

So much misinformation here. I'm sure you're one of the people who criticize the media for using old photos of Martin when he was younger and more innocent-looking. That is a valid criticism. By the same token, calling someone who hadn't been on a football team for years a football player is also deceptive. The strength and conditioning you get from a sport can go away pretty quickly once you stop playing it.

Also, based on the up-to-date (before his death, of course) pictures I've seen of Martin, as tough as he was trying to look, he was a stick insect. Comparing him to Zimmerman, who was a bouncer (unclear how recently since the events where he worked as a bouncer were illegal and he's not likely to want to admit to profiting from an illegal enterprise), I'm pretty sure Zimmerman could have broken him in half in any protracted fight.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Injuries do take time to show. The copious amounts of blood that should end up on you when you shoot someone directly above you while you are lying on the ground show up right away, however. This tends to lend credence to the idea that Martin was essentially executed rather than being killed in the heat of combat.

IMO, there's no arguing that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted Martin. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. If Martin jumped Zimmerman, this is clear self defense. If not, it's murder. Which was it? I have no idea. Good luck, jury. I hope you get it right.

There's no arguing that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted Martin, true. There's also no argument that Zimmerman forced the confrontation by chasing Martin. If Martin jumped Zimmerman, it was clear self defense, and I don't mean Zimmerman shooting Martin was clear self-defense, I mean Martin jumping the armed lunatic chasing him was clear self-defense. I think many people see a false dichotomy in this. As far as I can tell, even if everything Zimmerman said about the incident is exactly true, it was still at least manslaughter. Negligent and unsafe actions leading to death.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.

Re:Blame the victim much

[91degrees]

The prosecution is probably going to be painting Martin as a living saint who would never harm anyone or anything, to pour doubt on Zimmerman's defence that he was attacked. If the tweets indicate violent behaviour then that will invalidate that line of argument.

That's just one thing that might happen. The defence team will have put together a lot of prosecution scenarios. It's not hard to imagine some of them will depend on the nature of the victim.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.

Of course, by that logic, locking up criminals is highly unfair treatment, since it assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.

Re:Blame the victim much

[niko9]

But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).

An act of self defense is an affirmative defense. You say to the jury, "Yes, I shot this person. But this why..." Self defense is legal in all the states of the Union. Why would it be unfortunate? People seem to think that Florida is somehow special in that you can shoot with impunity even if you just "feel" the least bit threatened. NOT TRUE.

Take New York State, for example. NYS (where I live) has no stand your ground law. The relevant statute says you have a duty to retreat when in public. BUT, it doesn't apply if you can't do so safely, e.g., I have a toddler with me, doing so would mean running into an active highway, I'm in a wheelchair, I'm wearing a cast on an appendage, etc.

In Florida, you have no duty to retreat if you are in a public place where you have every right to be. But all the other other legal standards for acting in self defense still apply. That is, was I the initial aggressor in the confrontation? Did the attacker have the ability to attack? Did he have the opportunity? Was he placing me in jeopardy? Read here: http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.

It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?

Not only that, but the legal standard would be: what would a reasonable person do at that time under those conditions knowing what the accused knew?

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

Get your head out your ass.

Clearly you missed the whole part of the MSM showing martin at 12 years old instead of 17, whitening his pictures, claiming Zimmerman as white, NBC editing a 911 call to further their narrative, etc.

You've self-identified as another Obaaaaama cultist.

Re:Blame the victim much

[voss]

Actually thats not true. This is the part of the florida stand your ground law that deals with provocation. The problem is not that the stand your ground law has no clause on provocation. The problem is section 2 (a) and (b) have such big loopholes that they are meaningless. The right limit to this law would be to prohibit aggressors from claiming protection under stand your ground...period. Someone who is defending themselves after provoking a fight can still use a traditional claim of self-defense and make their case to a jury.

776.041Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

What if the security guard changes into plain clothes with a gun strapped on and follows you as you walk home. You panic because some strange person is following you and you run and hide and you watch them get out of their vehicle and walk around looking for you. When you confront the security guard about why they were following you, the security guard does not say: "I'm a security guard at the mall and I want to check your receipt", but instead lies to you, then turns their back and goes for their gun (or at least it looks like they are, since they're obscuring their actions by turning, but in reality they're going for their cell phone). Under the Florida law people keep claiming exonerates Zimmerman, that pretty much does give you the right to assault the security guard, since you have very good reason to believe he's about to kill you.

Except for the part about it being a security gaurd (neighborhood watch instead), the above is Zimmerman's story for what happened. By his own admission, he created a dangerous, threatening situation and then he shot Martin as a consequence. That's at least manslaughter.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: "

The point isn't whether Zimmerman knew it, the point is to determine how likely Martin was to get violent, and thus provide further evidence to indicate Zimmerman's account as plausible.

In fact if Zimmerman *knew* about all this in advance, that would be evidence against *Zimmerman*, as the prosecution would have argued Zimmerman may have intentionally targetted Martin. The question is whether Martin is the violent thug type, not whether Zimmerman *knew* about his past.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

watch the video around 3:40 for a hilarious interruption to the introduction.

Re:Blame the victim much

[anarcobra]

My life is far more important to me than yours.
I think that most people would think the same even if they might not admit it.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

He was on his back, he'd had a large laceration to the back of his head from falling and/or being pounded on the concrete. Those are two things which if taken alone, would already warrant the use of escalated force.

Two problems there. There was no large laceration visible on the police video. Also, if Martin was actually above Zimmerman when he shot him, why was Martin's blood not on Zimmerman?

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

A "teenage boy" at 17 who is taller than Zimmerman. A 6' tall, 17 year old wearing a hoodie walking around a gated neighborhood in the middle of the night, in sweltering Florida, in a high crime area = totally normal.

Lol @ cornering him.

Zimmerman confronted him, Trayvon tried to keep it real and got blown away.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Martin played HS football and was all of 4 months removed from playing. He still would have been lifting weights unless he had planned on skipping the next season. That is a toss up I doubt we can determine, so I will give you that. The rest isn't misinformation. It's mostly you not knowing what you're talking about, which is not unusual since most people haven't followed the case that closely.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to my children.

Re:Blame the victim much

[sribe]

Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.

??? Do you not understand the notion of "social contract"? You can say that our lives have equal worth, OK, fine. You don't attack me and I won't attack you. However, if you do attack me, you give up the right to not be attacked. You get that, right?

So if I have to kill you to stop the attack, I damn sure will, and that's one of the most fundamental human rights there is.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Belial6]

You have it backwards. It isn't an attempt to make white people afraid of blacks, it is an attempt to get blacks outraged against whites. If it was an attempt to scare white people, they would not have misreported Trayvon as a young child. They would have made shown him as being as big and menacing as possible. Instead, the media has portrayed Martin as being a lose cannon, and Trayvon as being a defenseless child. The fact that you call him a child shows that you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. The media even went so far as to splice the audio tapes together in a way to try and vilify Martin.

Which ever one is the aggressor (could even be both), it is clear that the media is not trying to rally white people up against blacks.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

Why would it be unfortunate?

The *killing* is unfortunate. In the final analysis, a 17 year old kid is dead, regardless of the reasons. I consider that unfortunate, and I can still be sorry to hear of his death, even if it was a completely warranted act of self defense on Zimmerman's part.

If the shooting was self defense, I'd never suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have defended himself... but the outcome is still tragic.

Re:Blame the victim much

[DeadCatX2]

Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

Shooting someone who is on top of you, beating your head into the ground, would likely result in getting some of that person's blood on you, don't you think?

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

That's because you don't know shit about Florida's SYG law and precedent set by existing case law

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Yeah so my point still stands. Next time save yourself the time and effort in posting. There have been numerous cases where the aggressor has walked in Florida after claiming SYG.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

No

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense. There is simply no reason for anyone to take the life of another human being.

That's your opinion. And it is a remarkably stupid opinion. Have you lived a sheltered life of privilege? Sounds like it.

Would you say that if you were married, and had one or more children, and you were faced with the choice of watching an attacker kill your spouse and children in front of you, or shooting the attacker? That wouldn't rise to the level of a reason to use deadly force?

And by the way, the law doesn't exactly authorize "deadly" force; it authorizes "potentially deadly" force. If you shoot the attacker, he might still survive. It is entirely possible to use potentially deadly force to stop an attacker without anyone dying.

And in fact, if you shoot the attacker and he falls in an inert heap, and you then walk over and carefully shoot him through the brain, you have gone beyond self-defense and into the realm of murder; and the law will nail you for it. And I would agree you deserved it. It's the difference between using force sufficient to stop an attack, vs. willfull murder. If you wind up needing to shoot an attacker to save an innocent life, and teh attacker winds up dying, that's fine with me; I don't condone actual murder though.

I would use potentially deadly force in self-defense or to defend any innocent person (not just my own family and friends). But that's the last resort. Often, just pointing a gun at the attacker is enough to make him change his mind and wait for the police to come and take him away. (Funny how that is never news... when a legal firearm is used to stop a violent attack, and nobody gets hurt, not even the attacker, you never hear about it.)

I'm glad that your life has been sufficiently sheltered that you can still hold such lofty ideals. But this is one ideal that is wildly out of touch with reality. There are times when the choice is to inflict harm to stop a violent attack, or to just watch the violent attack occur. I really hope you don't actually think it is better to just allow a violent attack on the innocent, than to use force to stop that attack; I really hope you just haven't thought this through.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Your entire point is fucking irrelevant. Florida law doesn't differentiate between someone creating the circumstance and a normal, innocent bystander. Your beef is with the law not Zimmerman. What he did was stupid, dangerous, and wrong, but it was not illegal. Going into the hood screaming NIGGER and wearing swatiska tats isn't illegal but it sure as fuck is stupid

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. If deadly force is being used *against* you, then it's quite possible that *only* deadly force will be sufficient self defense to keep *you* alive.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Hentes]

Neither of those is actual evidence, which is why I hate these 'psychological profiling' stuff in court, it's the worst form of pseudoscience when someones innocence depends on whether or not they have a 'criminal mindset' according to the court. This is a tricky legal situation: in self-defence, the burden of proof is on the defendant, he is the one who has to show that he was attacked. Which in cases like this one is almost impossible. Sadly, I have no idea how this could be solved.

Re:Blame the victim much

[evil_aaronm]

"6' tall" means just about nothing. My nephew is 6' or 6'1", easily six inches taller than me, and I kick his ass all the time. Why? Because he's a skinny little punk, and I'm a muscular wrestling coach. You're projecting that "6'" means "automatic bad-ass." Shit, lots of basketball players are tall, but can't fight worth beans.

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

And you're basing that on what? Surely not the law or what the majority of people would feel is an adequate response. You being followed is NEVER a reason to instigate a physical confrontation.

There is nothing showing that Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Yeah I was stronger and taller than my dad at 15 years old. Didn't matter that he outweighed me by 15 lbs. Weight can be important, but it's not the be all end-all

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

They are not police except in the cases where it's an actual officer is acting as dispatcher and there is still zero legal obligation to do what a dispatcher tells you to do. They aren't there, they don't have all the facts and have no legal or moral authority to give you orders that you must adhere to.

Re:Blame the victim much

[evil_aaronm]

158 pounds, on the autopsy table, and over 6' tall is a skinny kid. At 5'5", I weigh 155, but I lift weights, and stay in shape. This kid hardly sounds imposing.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Your posts are laughable

Re:Blame the victim much

[DNS-and-BIND]

1st degree murder...whaaaat? That's premeditated murder, like when you lie in wait for someone. Sorry, you have no business discussing this situation with adults.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

No they are not. Dispatchers do not have a badge and cannot issues lawful orders. He was under no more scrutiny than if you or I had told him to stop. Stanford police stated as much early in the investigation and said he was under no obligation to do so.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

There was bruising and other marks on Martin's knuckes. Read the autopsy report

Re:Blame the victim much

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the interesting part: since Trayvon Martin is dead, the only accounts we have of the incident is those of Zimmerman. In other words, the only thing we know about the entire incident comes from the person looking at life in prison if the entire thing isn't self-defense. Somehow, we should believe Zimmerman and not challenge his account of the events? Despite a very clear motive to lie his ass off?

As for what the intent of the Stand Your Ground Laws is, it matters very little. The only thing that does matter is the outcome of laws. And right now, the outcome of Stand Your Ground Laws is that if you're ever in a confrontation with no witnesses (or very pliable witnesses), make sure to kill whoever is confronting you.That can't possibly work long term.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Fuck the low res police video. How about the pictures taken by police on the night of the shooting or the doctor notes from the day after? http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

Re:Blame the victim much

[Onuma]

I agree, there are inconsistencies. I guarantee I'd have fired more than one round if I were in that scenario...but then again being a "reasonable person" I wouldn't have been pursuing an unknown entity at night.

I haven't seen the autopsy data indicating levels of GSR, type of bullet, trajectory, estimated distance, etc...so I couldn't say for sure; that's something the trial will bring to light. There are far different patterns of ballistic reaction at zero distance vs. arms length or anything further. Knuckle bruising is a great point. Only if he'd been training on a heavy bag or some other practice would he not develop bruises or abrasions from punches to someone's head, but that doesn't rule out grabbing the face/head and smashing it down.

I thought of the same possibility; perhaps Zimmerman smacked his own head on the concrete or otherwise damaged himself to make it seem plausible. Considering the guy on the other end of the muzzle is dead, we may never know whether that is true or not. It is 100% speculation, and is therefore thrown out the window without witnesses or other proof. The police video does show something on Zimmerman's head, though it is not very clear from the angle or lighting. A video released later shows a long laceration which hadn't fully healed as Zimmerman walked police through the crime scene.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that Murder Two is going to be extremely difficult to prosecute and stick in this case. The prosecution will need to be spot-on with their arguments and the defense will need to be bumbling and incompetent to lose that fight.

Re:Blame the victim much

[NeutronCowboy]

I've been in enough fights as a kid to know that when it gets to the point that when your head is being smashed around, you're not enough in control to pull out a concealed weapon and use it. Furthermore, I've been in enough accident to know that if you smash your head on the ground - even mildly - you're not in a state to do much else afterwards.

All in all, from my experience, Zimmerman's account doesn't pass the bullshit test. Too many things don't properly tie together. My suspicion is that there was an altercation, but that it wasn't nearly as life-threatening as Zimmerman made it out to be.

Re:Blame the victim much

[NeutronCowboy]

Nifty piece of information on Zimmerman's background as a bouncer: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079454/-Zimmerman-was-Fired-from-Security-Job-after-he-Snapped. Yeah, it's dailykos, but that story was pretty broadly distributed. Feel free to find your own link.

Re:Blame the victim much

[gnasher719]

Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.

You are misunderstanding what this is about. This is not "there's a 17 year old, tall, strong kid looking at me. If he's never done anything wrong, then he is harmless. If he has a history of fights, then I look for my gun". This is a case "The guy shooting the 17 year old claims it was self defence. There are no witnesses. Do we believe him? If the 17 year old has never been in trouble, then the guy is likely lying. If the 17 year old has a history of fights, then it is quite possible that the story is true".

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Being assaulted by somebody who attacks you because they're afraid of you?

Why should that be a case where you can blame the person who is defending themselves from you?

Zimmerman wasn't minding his business, but actively intervening. And absent any actually recognized authority, he can't claim that it was wrong for Trayvon Martin to defend himself.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Maow]

The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.

But if Zimmerman were following Martin around, perhaps making Martin feel threatened, and Martin attacked Zimmerman, isn't Martin the one "Standing his ground"? Albeit without a gun?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Glock27]

The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.

I did see a video from social media that purported to show TM in some kind of HS "fight club". Not good for the prosecution if so.

Re:Blame the victim much

[russotto]

Injuries do take time to show. The copious amounts of blood that should end up on you when you shoot someone directly above you while you are lying on the ground show up right away, however. This tends to lend credence to the idea that Martin was essentially executed rather than being killed in the heat of combat.

The copious amounts of blood from a shooting tend to come out the exit wound (and there was none in this case). You get some from the entry wound, but not nearly as much. Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.

That is sometimes, but not always the case.

It doesn't need to be a 100% correct correlation. It only needs to establish reasonable doubt.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Glock27]

Never mind the eye witnesses that support GZ's version of events...

Re:Blame the victim much

[phantomfive]

It's a judgement call. I've seen cases where the police have waited years before arresting the (eventually convicted) murderer. If the person is not a flight risk, and not a danger to do further violence, there is no reason to arrest them.

I asked a lawyer friend about this case specifically, and he suggested that the actions of the police and prosecution indicate they actually didn't feel confident that they had the evidence to convict him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[gbjbaanb]

nope, but I've been beaten up before - I was more concerned with stopping my head getting kicked in, arms up to protect my head from more blows, and I still came away seriously bruised and bloody.

A smack around the head isn't like in the movies you see, you don;t roll away, take time to snap out a quick witticism, pull your gun and put several shots in the bad guy while your hair stays in place.

Re:Blame the victim much

[phantomfive]

Your life is no more important than anyone else's

To me it is.

Re:Blame the victim much

[NeutronCowboy]

What about the notion that Zimmerman had a history of violence himself, actually getting fired from his job as a bouncer for being too unstable? Is that relevant? If so, how does the relevance of that rank compare to getting into fights in school, or getting suspended for marijuana dust?

Re:Blame the victim much

[FrangoAssado]

Yeah so my point still stands. Next time save yourself the time and effort in posting.

I completely disagree. He offered relevant information and clarified what the law says. Even if it doesn't invalidate your point, it's a good post.

Discussion is not about winning arguments, it's about exchanging ideas to better understand things.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Re:Blame the victim much

[BillyGee]

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood, but did you really just say most teens have a history of violence and justify it as being part of growing up? Seriously? If this is true where you live, you should move. The rest of the world is different.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Your opinion is less than worthless if you had any questions about it

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Got your ass kicked huh?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Pinhedd]

The court should not be putting George Zimmerman in a position where he is forced to prove his innocence. Material which is relevant to proving his guilt can be admitted as long as it meets the standard of evidence but it is generally easier to get character evidence about the victim admitted than it is to get character evidence about the defendant admitted. Courts look down on putting the victim on trial but when there's a lack of witnesses there's not much of a choice.

Please remember that it is the prosecution that has to prove George Zimmerman's guilt, not George Zimmerman that has to prove his own innocence. Under Florida law they must disprove Zimmerman's account of events using investigative procedure, not by hoping that a jury will find him guilty on a whim. This case has already made a mockery of our justice system.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Revotron]

How delightfully lofty and optimistic of you. Next time you're being beaten to death by a murderer and you have a knife or a gun you can use to defend yourself, I hope you remember what you just said and lay back and die like a good boy instead of harming some innocent brute to save your own life.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Pinhedd]

No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.

In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.

Re:Blame the victim much

[TangoMargarine]

So flip a coin? If my life supposedly isn't any more important than anyone else's, why are you assuming *his* is?

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

1st degree murder...whaaaat? That's premeditated murder, like when you lie in wait for someone. Sorry, you have no business discussing this situation with adults.

He's talking about the night of the shooting. Despite being asked (not told, since a 911 dispatcher cannot give you orders) to not follow the kid, he got out of the car anyway and then somehow the kid ended up dead after being shot with George's gun. There's potential cause for a charge of premeditation - (why did he get out of the car? Even if it's his "legal right" to get out of the car, as some /. posters have been using as justification for killing the kid, why did he get out and go after him if he thought Trayvon was dangerous or suspicious - he's not a cop himself, so what is he going to do when he catches up to him?) , however I doubt very much that he would have been charged with such a thing had this all been handled properly at the time - hence the holding of the suspect for 24 hours and the following investigation of the crime that should have happened but did not.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

A "teenage boy" at 17 who is taller than Zimmerman. A 6' tall, 17 year old wearing a hoodie walking around a gated neighborhood in the middle of the night, in sweltering Florida, in a high crime area = totally normal.

Lol @ cornering him.

Zimmerman confronted him, Trayvon tried to keep it real and got blown away.

Yeah, because he was totally going to commit "crime" with his ice tea and skittles. Wearing a hoodie is not a crime. Being black is not a crime. Walking on the street at night is not a crime.

Following a guy in your car, getting out, confronting him and then shooting him in the event of a struggle is a crime. Given that Zimmerman is using the "stand your ground" defence, why not Martin? What else is he meant to do when a guy gets out of his car carrying a gun and marching over to him. Why no " stand your ground" defence for Martin who now has to decide whether to fight or run away from a guy coming after him with a gun? You can''t claim self defence if you were the aggressor. The holes in Zimmerman's story and the absurd decisions he made (even if they were totally legal and "his right" to do, like getting out of his car) really don't bode well for him, especially when his "dangerous, suspicious, violence-prone" suspect was armed with a can of ice tea and some candy. What was his game plan? Give people diabetic comas and then rob them?

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

Your opinion is less than worthless if you had any questions about it

Wow. What are you even doing on a discussion forum? You have a very high opinion of yourself indeed. I'm amazed you can even stand it for five minutes slumming it with us proles.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

No they are not. Dispatchers do not have a badge and cannot issues lawful orders. He was under no more scrutiny than if you or I had told him to stop. Stanford police stated as much early in the investigation and said he was under no obligation to do so.

"I advise you not to get out and approach the man you've told us is suspicious and dangerous, but you are free to do so if you want to. Oh, and that gives you a free pass to shoot him if you get yourself into more trouble than you were expecting".

Being legally allowed to do something and actually doing it are two separate issues. Common sense should have told Zimmerman to stay in the car if his story is going to add up. Why would he put himself in danger unnecessarily if he believed Martin was/could be a threat to him?

Just because a 911 dispatcher can't force you not to get out and approach the kid does not mean that he should have done it in the first place.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Maow]

No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.

In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.

Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.

And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.

At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.

Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.

Just a mess all around.

Re:Blame the victim much

[IHateEverybody]

In other words, there's a slippery slope where if you are anything other than a little saint, you deserve to die and any trigger-happy douche can appoint himself as judge, jury, and executioner.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Sorry, I've seen the pictures of Martin. Not just the young pictures, the ones from pretty much immediately before his death where he's posing and trying to look tough. He was a stick insect.

The weather in Sanford, Florida on February 26th of this year was a mean temperature of 58.7. Notes say rain and/or melted snow reported during the day. Mean wind speed was 7.83 MPH with gusts of 21.86 MPH. Sunset was at 6:23 PM. Zimmerman spotted Martin at approximately 7:09 PM. Temperatures in the evening could be expected to be below the mean temperature, making Martin's clothing completely weather-appropriate.

This was a gated neighborhood, as you observed. It was not, despite some break-ins, a high crime area.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.

In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.

Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.

And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.

At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.

Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.

Just a mess all around.

No, you're not remembering that correctly, though I suspect the media reports were designed to make you think that was the case.

The 911 operator did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. The 911 operator said, "We don't need you to do that."

That's not direction. The 911 operator isn't telling Zimmerman ANYTHING with that statement. To wit: I don't need YOU to breathe. If you don't breathe, you'll die. MY needs are irrelevant. The 911 operator might just as well have said, "I dress my hamster in polka-dot Fruit of the Loom underwear."

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

This isn't a stand your ground issue ffs. Good thing you haven't been following the case at all. You clearly don't understand stand your ground either. It's not applicable to this case. .

I guarantee you all the robbers weren't wearing outfits from Banana Republic, they were dressed more like trayvon. And yes, you can claim self-defense if the person has escalated the use of force continuum. Do you have any background in security? Obviously not -- just another liberal westerner with white guilt.

Sanford is an old Florida town undergoing rebirth. If you've ever been there, you'll see tracts of trailer parks, ghetto housing while the new housing complexes are all gated communities (for good reason). Wearing a hoodie at midnight, on a school night, in a neighborhood with a higher than normal crime right is suspicious. You must be retarded if you don't understand that. Zimmerman confronted the him, Martin decided he was gonna "keep it real" and this was a case where keeping it real goes wrong.

Zimmerman didn't go out of his house that night with the expectation of killing someone in self defense and Martin didn't go out expecting to start shit. But he responded poorly and behaved like the underaged, tattoo'd delinquent that he was. Nice to see you failed to include the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

Sanford is a dirty, high crime town. Have you ever been there?

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

No, I haven't been there, although I have visited towns similar to what you describe in Florida. But the "area" in question, was the gated neighborhood, not the whole town.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

A 17 year old football player is going to be strong and in great shape.

By all definitions that matter, a 17 year old is a child. Most 20 year olds I have met are also children. The size of person does not make him strong, but rather his toughness, which is dependent upon experience. I'm 5'11", 150lbs., skinny and not exactly physically strong, also of a passive, non-confrontation, non-violent and fair disposition. But I guarantee you beyond all doubt that I can bring any 17 year old, even the ones that are 6'4", 280lbs, to sob uncontrollably within minutes without ever touching them (if they pissed me off sufficiently is the only way I could see this occuring). How do I know this? Because I am an adult, and I have seen how this is done. A child is a child, and these days, even the younger legal adults are really mere children.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

I guarantee you all the robbers weren't wearing outfits from Banana Republic, they were dressed more like trayvon[sic]

Which robbers? No-one involved in the breakins was caught. Robbers also traditionally dress in articles of ski clothing. Do we need vigilantes on the streets of Aspen, Colorado as well?

Wearing a hoodie at midnight, on a school night, in a neighborhood with a higher than normal crime right is suspicious.

Not midnight. Approximately 7 PM. It looks like he left to go to the store before dark and was heading back shortly after dark. Also, the neighborhood didn't have a higher than average crime rate. The crime rate was lower than average for the town.

Zimmerman confronted the him, Martin decided he was gonna "keep it real" and this was a case where keeping it real goes wrong.

Zimmerman did not confront Martin according to Zimmerman's own story. He chased Martin in his car, essentially cornered him but lost sight of him, went out on foot in search of him, then Martin confronted Zimmerman. At that point, Zimmerman did not announce that he was with the neighborhood watch, he instead lied and acted in a way that a reasonable person would consider suspicious and probably threatening.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ. There are only a handful of lives in the world more important than mine (wife, kids, other close family). You might disagree, but it's probably best not to force people to prove something like that.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

My goodness. Such vitriol.

I never claimed that walking at night, in a hoodie, in a gated community at night wasn't suspicious. I said it wasn't a crime. Maybe that makes me retarded because you lack reading comprehension? Probably.

This case is absolutely about Stand Your Ground. George Zimmerman himself (you know, the guy who shot the kid) has requested a hearing based on those provisions, so I'm not sure how this "isn't a stand your ground issue ffs". Maybe you can enlighten me?

I ask again. Why did Zimmerman confront him? If Martin was as dangerous-looking and suspicious as he claims then why get out of the car at all? He may have had the right to do so, and even the right to go up and confront him, but he had no reason to other than the belief that he would "get away" before the police showed up. In this "higher than average" crime area, Zimmerman put himself into a situation that he had no full idea about. What if Martin had been one of the burglars who had been seen a few weeks before, and armed with a weapon themselves? What if there had been more than one of them? He had no idea. As it turns out he got lucky - it was just an innocent guy with some skittles walking home to the house that he was staying at *in the community*. Martin had every right to be there too - and just "looking suspicious" is not a criminal act.

The wounds on zimmerman's head are irrelevant - I'd expect both of them to be bloodied if the situation happened as described by Zimmerman - a human fighting for his life is a pretty tenacious thing. As it happens I don't think things happened exactly as described - Martin doesn't have many offensive or defensive wounds based on the autopsy report, and neither does Zimmerman, other than the superficial head wounds (he was examined and treated at the scene by a paramedic and not hospitalised - his head wounds were nothing overtly serious).

I have no idea what happened that night, other than the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car and shot Martin. Whether he was justified in doing so depends on what he did in between those two facts. He should never have put himself in that position in the first place.

I see that you've already made up your mind though, that Marin deserved it, given your description of him (you'll note carefully that I have not judged Zimmerman's character based on his appearance, race, or personality, merely questioned some of the choices he made that night), so I think this discussion is ultimately pointless. You've made up your mind that this "underaged, tattoo'd (sic) delinquent" got what was coming to him because he was walking down the street at night in the neighbourhood where he was staying and had the nerve to try and run away from a guy following him in a car, and then on foot, who was armed with a gun.

So what if he "tried to keep it real" - surely that's self defence against a man coming at you on a dark street at night, on a school night, with a gun - that's suspicious and dangerous behaviour, as you pointed out! Martin would have to be retarded not to believe that wasn't suspicious! It was only logical that he defend himself, right?!

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

No shit. So dressing in a thuggish manner in a gated community is completely normal? You're really struggling for coherency here.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AntiBasic]

Yes, it's perfectly normal for people to walk around like a thug in a gated community (especially one he didn't live in).

You've never been to Sanford. It's a town you don't normally just walk around in. If you can't understand that, you're too stupid to talk to.

>Essentially cornered him but lost sight

lulz

Yes, yes, the liberal white guilt is strong with you. Let it guide everything for you. You can't see beyond it.

I know you're trolling because there's no way you could possibly be this fucking stupid.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Maow]

No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.

In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.

Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.

And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.

At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.

Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.

Just a mess all around.

No, you're not remembering that correctly, though I suspect the media reports were designed to make you think that was the case.

The 911 operator did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. The 911 operator said, "We don't need you to do that."

That's not direction. The 911 operator isn't telling Zimmerman ANYTHING with that statement. To wit: I don't need YOU to breathe. If you don't breathe, you'll die. MY needs are irrelevant. The 911 operator might just as well have said, "I dress my hamster in polka-dot Fruit of the Loom underwear."

Wow, that's an amazingly bad analogy. BadAnalogyGuy would be disappointed.

Anway, you didn't address the point that one could argue that TM felt threatened by being followed, even though he'd shaken his pursuer at one time.

Though I suspect your response was designed to ignore that pertinent bit.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

And I remember in my early twenties being picked up by a kid around Trayvon Martin's age. He was African-American also, if it matters, he was about 6' 2, but fairly lean, though not as lean as Martin. He reached around and grabbed me around the waist and started carrying me backwards. It was all friendly and in good fun, but also a bit of one of those stupid male self-assertion things . I'm a little over 5' 8", so about average height, but he was quite looming and , although I probably outmassed him. I remember he was quite surprised when I reached down, grabbed his hands and simply pulled them apart, leaving his hands in some minor pain. If the situation were reversed, he wouldn't have stood a chance of pulling my arms apart and I could have squeezed him until his ribs cracked and, after he felt my grip, both of us knew it.

Your dad might have outweighed you by 15 pounds, but how was he built, and what kind of health was he in? If the extra weight was a gut and he had bad knees, for example, it's not surprising if you could beat him. Looking at Zimmerman, he seems to be pretty densely built. The fact that he had worked as a bouncer suggests he could probably handle himself, and age and experience count for something.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Martin played football up to the age of 14. That's not 4 months removed from playing. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

Ever been in that exact situation?

I was. (Without the gun.)

Where I came from in Brooklyn, that was a typical fight. Sometimes I was bashing the other guy's head on the concrete pavement, sometimes he was bashing my head on the concrete pavement.

If I pulled a gun and killed the other guy, I'd expect to be prosecuted for homicide or murder. While getting your head bashed against the concrete isn't pleasant, it's not as bad as being dead.

I don't think Zimmerman was in danger of getting killed. He was in danger of getting the shit kicked out of him, and maybe a broken nose or a couple of black eyes.

When you add guns to the situation, people get killed.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

There was no blood on Zimmerman because I don't know about the law? Please enlighten me.

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker. Of course, the NRA is trying to change those laws.

If you go around with a concealed handgun, confronting other people, and somebody fights back, you don't have a right to kill him. Try it and you'll wind up like Zimmerman.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

That's fairly informative. I couldn't find anything about whether or not there was an exit wound.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

You're really reaching on that

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Florida does, in fact, have laws for manslaughter. Any time you anyone does anything stupid that gets someone killed where the outcome was remotely forseeable, it's manslaughter. Plenty of people have gone to jail for manslaughter who were far, far less culpable than Zimmerman.

As for your example of something not illegal but stupid, you can be assured that, anyone doing that who was subsequently attacked, but shot the attackers would be charged with manslaughter at least.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

He played the same year he was murdered...so 4 months

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Trying to educate people about shitty SYG laws.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Zimmerman should have not done what he did. That doesn't mean he was legally in the wrong when he did it. This isn't a difficult issue for people who have more than three brain cells. He's an idiot, but so are the white power morons who asked Chicago for a police escort while they marched and offended people. The laws often suck. Change them and avoid falsely punishing people.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

No you're not, you lying piece of shit. You're throwing tantrums at people for providing facts. You're actively trying to PREVENT education.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Murasaki Skies]

Violence is never a legal response to a nonviolent provocation.

Unless you're the government, of course.

Re:Blame the victim much

[russotto]

In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker.

Florida's requirement (and it is not atypical) is that you do have a right to use deadly force in self defense if you're in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. If you're getting pounded in the head and your attacker has already broken your nose, that fear might well be there, and it would be reasonable.

If you go around with a concealed handgun, confronting other people, and somebody fights back, you don't have a right to kill him. Try it and you'll wind up like Zimmerman.

Alive? A bit of doggerel from Usenet covers that one -- "Avoid the legal nets / that entangled Bernie Goetz / Yell 'Help Help Police' / Like Kitty Genovese"

Of course, your little narrative assumes that physically attacking someone who merely "confronts" you is "fighting back", an assumption I think is at odds with the law.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an admission that you could find no actual flaw with his post.

You will now prove me right.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Pinhedd]

Challenging Zimmerman's account of events is fine. However, it needs to be challenged by investigation in accordance with the standards of evidence. It is not acceptable to throw him at the mercy of a jury and hope that something sticks.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

That does seem to suggest that parts of the fight Zimmerman described did indeed happen. However, given the very visible blood in the picture you linked to, and the complete lack of blood in the police video (which does have some back of the head shots with sufficient contrast that anything like the later shots should be visible), the later shots of his head look a little staged since the blood wasn't flowing freely again after his trip to the police station. Not saying that the injuries aren't real, just that he may have whacked his head against something to get the blood flowing again. What you posted still doesn't really address the lack of blood on Zimmerman's front. I've been told there was some blood splatter and that the wound wouldn't have produced much blood, but it still seems like there should have been at least some visible. The police video isn't great, but it still gives some pretty good shots of Zimmerman's shirt.

In any case, the existence of a struggle doesn't really prove that the use of escalated force was warranted since it doesn't really say anything about details of the fight that aren't part of Zimmerman's story. It also doesn't address the fact that the whole thing happened because Zimmerman created a situation that would leave Martin fearing for his life.

Re:Blame the victim much

[ultranova]

Shooting someone who is on top of you, beating your head into the ground,

Is a pretty damn impressive feat.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

"A thuggish manner?" You mean in warm clothing that covers your ears in winter? You already tried to claim it was sweltering and didn't respond at all to the fact that your claim was complete bunk, and you're trying to call me incoherent?

Also, is it possible that the manner of his dress wouldn't have looked so "thuggish" if he didn't also insist on wearing dark skin?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force.

Correct.

You don't have a right to kill your attacker.

Oversimplified. You never have a right to attack someone with intent to kill, but you sometimes have the right to use potentially lethal force to stop an attacker. The legal standard, as summarized by Massad Ayoob, goes something like this: You may only use potentially lethal force to prevent an immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. ("Grave bodily harm" has a specific legal meaning, look it up.) This standard is pretty much universal across the USA, and not only covers firearm use but also knife use, use of a baton against someone's head, or any other potentially lethal force.

If a guy you have never seen before is running at you with a knife yelling "I'll kill you!!", you are legal to shoot him if you have no other way to prevent him from killing you. If he falls down after you shoot him, and you walk up to him and shoot him a few times in the head, now you just committed murder. If you just taunted the guy a bunch or otherwise provoked the situation, it is murkier and you might be in big trouble.

TL;DR There are all sorts of laws and precedents covering the use of force in self-defense; you don't seem to be aware of them. Yet you seem to feel free in commenting on them.

Here is a nice, short summary that won't take you long to read: http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Of course, the NRA is trying to change those laws.

What, the NRA is trying to make murder legal? I'd like a citation, please.

I presume you have no such citation, and are just assuming the worst about an organization you don't understand or know much about. I'm an NRA "Life Member" and I get emails all the time from the NRA. I think I would know if the NRA were trying to get murder legalized, or even if the NRA were trying to get a substantial change to the way self-defense works. So far they seem to be busy enough just pushing back against unConstitutional infringements to gun-owners' rights.

By the way, the NRA also offers gun safety classes, including classes for small children (the "Eddie Eagle" classes). The classes for children teach one message: If you see a gun: Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult! The lessons repeat this mantra many times to make it sink in. You will note the complete lack of pro-gun propaganda there; it's pure safety. (I mention the gun safety classes because some people think the NRA is nothing but political advocacy. I literally once had someone tell me "I'd have much more respect for the NRA if they did something helpful like teach safety classes." Um... they have been teaching gun safety classes for decades.)

If you go around with a concealed handgun, confronting other people, and somebody fights back, you don't have a right to kill him.

Correct as written. If you cause a confrontation, and you wind up in legitimate fear for your life, and you use lethal force to save your life... you will be in serious legal hot water for provoking the situation. And the NRA is fine with that, and so am I.

Try it and you'll wind up like Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's story is that Martin confronted him, and then attacked him. Martin: "You got a problem?" Zimmerman: "No." Martin: "Now you do." Zimmerman also claims that Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk, and that Martin said "You're going to die tonight."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-started-confrontation-zimmerman-lawyer-says/2012/03/26/gIQAIlr0cS_story.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/zimm_he_said_die_CRLY0byLFjnhr

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.

I don't assume that my life is more important than anyone else's to society. But, to me, my life is much more important. That's not arrogant. And it is not even selfish. If people didn't value their own lives, it would threaten the survival of our entire species.

Re:Blame the victim much

[shutdown -p now]

Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful.

It depends. If Zimmerman was brandishing his gun while following or immediately before confronting Trayvon, it may well have been illegal, and could be reasonably interpreted as an imminent threat of bodily harm.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

Trying to educate people about shitty SYG laws.

Maybe try a less antagonistic approach?

Acting like an arrogant ass is not usually effective.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Yes, it's perfectly normal for people to walk around like a thug in a gated community (especially one he didn't live in).

You really aren't very intellectually honest are you? First off, he was a minor with separated parents staying with his father who was co-habitating with his significant other in the neighborhood. In other words, even if only temporarily, he did live there. Secondly, how exactly do you define "walk[ing] around like a thug?". Is it the grievous crime of walking around while black? Or is just being young and male enough for you?

You've never been to Sanford. It's a town you don't normally just walk around in. If you can't understand that, you're too stupid to talk to.

Ok... No pedestrians in Sanford, got it. Not even in gated communities. And the fact that one of the witnesses was a 14 (might have been 13) year old pedestrian doesn't suggest that you're completely wrong at all. Oh, and despite the fact that you can't get the weather, or the time, or any other details right, I'm the stupid one? I think a little self-examination might be in order.

Essentially cornered him but lost sight

lulz

This is pretty much from Zimmerman's own version of events. Exactly where Martin was when Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to search for him is unknown and probably will never been known because Zimmerman killed him. We do know that Zimmerman chased him in his vehicle and Martin ran, but didn't make it back home, then Zimmerman got out of the car, then there was an altercation and Martin was killed. My description of events seems pretty in line with that.

I know you're trolling because there's no way you could possibly be this fucking stupid.

Uh-huh. Sorry, just saying it doesn't make it so.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

I'm reaching on what? My own personal anecdote, or my assertion that being taller doesn't make someone some sort of killing machine? Height is no more the be all and end all than weight is.

You didn't really answer my questions. Was your father, in fact in good shape and good health. Did you ever actually engage in any sort of combat? Arm wrestling? Anything that demonstrates that you really were physically superior?

None of this changes the fact that the 17-year old Martin frankly looked a bit frail.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

No one is disagreeing with that

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

No, he really did not. Where are you getting your information? Pretty much everything I can find says that he played football until age 14, went through an aviation program and didn't play football after that, though he did work concessions for games.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Yes he was in good health and shape, for his age at least. Any type of physical exertion, wrestling, basketball, whatever, showed I was above him physically. I beat him arm wrestling at 14 and haven't looked back since. I just don't think you really know what you're talking about. I remember being his size and 17. I was anything but frail, and I was an inch taller and weighed 5 lbs more.

Re:Blame the victim much

[khallow]

Advice from 911 operators as you note is not legally binding so no point talking that up.

Despite being asked (not told, since a 911 dispatcher cannot give you orders) to not follow the kid, he got out of the car anyway and then somehow the kid ended up dead after being shot with George's gun. There's potential cause for a charge of premeditation - (why did he get out of the car? Even if it's his "legal right" to get out of the car, as some /. posters have been using as justification for killing the kid, why did he get out and go after him if he thought Trayvon was dangerous or suspicious - he's not a cop himself, so what is he going to do when he catches up to him?)

And where's the case for premeditation? None of the acts above indicate such. I bet we'll find that he made a habit of talking to people he saw during his rounds which deflates your case even more.

It's worth noting here that Zimmerman might have in the past gotten a lot of mileage merely out of talking to potential troublemakers. If you're casing a neighborhood for robbery targets and someone sidles up and starts asking you questions about what you're doing, then you might give up on the neighborhood completely and look for something easier.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Could luck proving that

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Good*

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

I'm not your google search engine. NYT and the Orlando Sentinel had what I am putting out there.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Gunshots wounds tend not to bleed out the entry wound because of cauterization. There was no exit wound. Either way gun shot residue was indicative on a shot being fired from 1-18" from Martin and there are witnesses that place Martin on top of Zimmerman, who claims that is when he shot Martin. For better or worse, no one can prove hi guilt and current Florida law allows for what he did. Hell there was a case where a drug dealer was allowed to walk because someone TOLD him he was packing and the dealer gunned the dude down. That's far more of an egregious offense than what happened here, but Martin is a minor and the community needs its outrage

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Read the fucking autopsy report. It's only been public record for months now.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

You haven't really made it clear in what respect I don't know what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're trying to claim that being taller always gives someone the physical edge. Also, if you were stronger and taller than your father at 15 but only an inch taller than him at 17, you seem to have stopped growing early. In any case, being heavier or taller, or heavier and taller don't necessarily make someone physically superior, I think we can agree on that. Martin, however, was both significantly taller and significantly lighter than Zimmerman, who had himself recently lost weight. The only advantage I can see that Martin could have had was reach, and that doesn't count for much in close quarters grappling.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Clearly I am a liar, instead of an anonymous coward, and know nothing about the trial history of this law. READ ABOUT THE DISMISSALS, shut the fuck up, and go back to pulling your life partner's dildo out of your ass.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Neither is being a moron, but you insist on it.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

That might be the 2nd dumbest post I've seen on Slashdot. None of his posts actually have any factual basis, but I guess I'm aiming for too high of a standard for an AC

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Read the SYG law, shut the fuck up, and go back to your abode under the bridge. I've been assured the billy goats gruff will be by soon. Please educate yourself before you talk more. In this situation the SYG law will supersede the manslaughter laws because there is a lack of evidence against Zimmerman, not necessarily because he's innocent or was "right" in what he did. The case history across the entire state is overwhelmingly in Zimmerman's favor. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930 Get a bottle thrown at you? Shoot the guy and walk Guy steals your radio? Chase him, avoid his attack, kill him, and walk. Guy speeds by your house? Chase him down with gun, shoot his friend, and walk Guy tailgates you? Chase him down, no witnesses, kill him and walk... PLEASE READ UP ON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PONTIFICATE ABOUT

Re:Blame the victim much

[khallow]

There is simply no reason for anyone to take the life of another human being.

Most such self-defense killings have a reason along the line of "I thought my life was in danger and it was kill or be killed. So I killed the other person." There's a reason. It might not be a good or true reason, but it's a hell of a lot more than "no" reason.

I can understand the sentiment behind the first sentence, that deadly force should never be used. But deadly force is often used in the furtherance of evil activities. I just don't see a moral argument for saying that someone should allow themselves to be killed by another merely because it is immoral that the other person die. My view is that if my life is threatened by another to the point where it is them or me, I will try hard to make it them. Not only to save my life, which I consider sufficient reason in itself, but to protect others.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

The EMS cleaned him up before he was brought in. Read the police report and autopsy report. I don't give a shit what you've been told. Public record clearly indicates he was injured and Martin had corresponding bruising on his knuckles. I'm not Gary Sinise but I can read an autopsy report.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

15 lbs is not a significant amount of weight

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

And I'm not your search engine. Martin was a _former_ football player. He played up to age 14, then stopped.
Still, since we could just go back and forth forever making claims without references and demanding that the other look it up, here's a reference for you: Deconstructing HuffPo's Insufferable Propaganda Reporting on Trayvon Martin. The relevant section from that article:

Yeah, they love to keep talking about this football player Trayvon, except there’s one issue. He hasn’t played for years. I’m surprised they didn’t mention his weekly choir practice, or kitten rescue efforts.

The boy was a swift athlete, according to a friend, and played a range of positions up to about age 14.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Doctor_Jest]

First, you make two assumptions that are not in evidence yet (unless I missed them):

1. That Treyvon was wildly smashing his head into the ground after an initial blow that made Zimmerman incoherent and delirious. We do not know how hard he was hitting zimmerman's head, or if the blows themselves weren't being rebuffed by Martin or at least using his neck muscles to soften the impact (which is a natural reaction to force being applied to one's head.)

2. You assume that based on your experience with "mildly" hitting the ground with your head, that no one is capable of being capable of anything after that. I contend your "mild" hit to the ground was harder than you thought, and that a light hit is going to make things a little strange (and hurt), but not cause what most people see with a heavy impact on the head.

Additionally, we do not know the extent of force Treyvon could've been exerting if he was scared and angry enough to try smacking Zimmerman's head into the concrete. He could've had a bad angle when he tackled Zimmerman, he could've been so angry that in his fit of rage ( or fear-induced rage) he was just glancing the head into the concrete, which would've given Zimmerman enough time to pull his gun and stop Treyvon. Also, there might've been moisture coupled with the cold weather, so Treyvon might not have been able to get a good grip on Zimmerman's head to smash it effectively. And we all know the slightest nick to the head causes lots of bleeding, and sometimes requires more stitches in minor scrapes and bumps than other parts of the body (because the blood vessels are so close to the surface unless you've got a huge fat layer around your skull... like some politicians. heh.)

So, without all the facts, Zimmerman's account is plausible. I'm not claiming I know and you don't. I'm just saying it passes the bullshit test, because it eliminates the "variables turned constants" that you use to come to the conclusion Zimmerman's lying.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Still having a bit of trouble with the positioning of Martin when he was shot. If they were struggling for the gun, as Zimmerman claimed, there should probably be powder burns actually on Martin's hands and arms. Presumably such forensic details will come out during the trial if they exist.

As for whether anyone can prove Zimmerman's guilt, I would think that it's more a matter of law than a matter of fact. I think they can probably convict based only on the details Zimmerman admits to depending on the interpretation of the law. You seem pretty convinced that the stand your ground law will protect Zimmerman, but I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, as you've said, he killed a minor, and this will be decided by a jury. For another thing, I think that the stand your ground defense is torpedoed by the overall issue of Zimmerman's poor judgement leading to a death.

As for the case you mention with the drug dealer, presumably he was actually being actively threatened by someone trying to rob him. Clearly that wasn't happening in this case. Martin would never have been a threat to Zimmerman at all if Zimmerman weren't implicitly threatening him by chasing him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Great source you got there. I'll stick with the NYT. usually pretty reliable, and Orlando Sentinel, the newspaper that broke pretty much all the news on this story.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

No you could not

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

So far I've just seen summaries in news articles. Now I've read the report. Almost perfect shot through the heart from straight on. Seems even more like it should get blood on Zimmerman and that the body should have fallen on him when shot.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

By all reconstructions, testimony and other means available to the court, Martin was on top of Zimmerman. No one really contests that at this point. Your take on his SYG being torpedoed is idiotic, because, as I've demonstrated in this thread, you have zero knowledge of SYG case history in the state. There have been multiple PUBLICIZED instances where the instigator shoots the victim to death and walks. Do some god damn research. This is one such case: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-27/news/sns-mct-miami-man-freed-in-stand-your-ground-ruling-20120627_1_miami-man-miami-police-miami-gardens

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Martin's blood was on Zimmerman, so you clearly skimmed the report or read the summaries. You should call the Sanford ME and offer your expertise.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Read the SYG law, shut the fuck up, and go back to your abode under the bridge.

The SYG law may well be irrelevant due to Zimmerman's negligence creating the situation. Negligent behaviour leading to death can make all kinds of things that would otherwise be legal essentially illegal.

In this situation the SYG law will supersede the manslaughter laws because there is a lack of evidence against Zimmerman, not necessarily because he's innocent or was "right" in what he did.

That doesn't really make any sense because manslaughter laws would be covering the entire event, not just the specific parts involving the scuffle and the killing.
In all your examples of the SYG law (in which I sincerely hope there were some extenuating circumstances) the person killed was still committing some sort of criminal act that initiated the situation. In this case, Zimmerman is the one who initiated the situation, not Martin. Otherwise, by the same defense you present for Zimmerman, Martin is also entitled to defense under the SYG law.

Re:Blame the victim much

[drkim]

A "teenage boy" at 17 who is taller than Zimmerman. A 6' tall, 17 year old wearing a hoodie walking around a gated neighborhood in the middle of the night, in sweltering Florida, in a high crime area = totally normal.

Being a "...6' tall, 17 year old wearing a hoodie walking around a gated neighborhood in the middle of the night, in sweltering Florida, in a high crime area..." is not a crime.

If you think you see a crime, call the police. That's their business.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

He was cleaned up, and stayed clean during the trip in without bleeding, but then apparently started bleeding freely again from multiple locations later on for another police picture. Maybe swelling sealed the wounds and then went down later and they opened back up? Not sure, but it seems like if they were bleeding that freely someone would have put on at least a band-aid.

As for corresponding bruising on Martin's knuckles, now that I've read the autopsy in full, that's clearly not exactly the case. There was one small abrasion found on one knuckle.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Martin is not being charged with anything, but I believe he would also be able to claim SYG. However that is irrelevant. Surprise, surprise, you still don't know what the fuck you're talking about:

"That's not what the law says," said Steven Romine, a Tampa Bay lawyer who has invoked "stand your ground" successfully. "They might think that in their own heads, but it's just not true.

"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground." Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.

"The real issue is what happens around the 60 seconds prior to the shooting," said Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which brought the charges against Greyston Garcia. "Everything else has emotional content, but from a legal perspective, it all comes down to the 60 seconds before the incident." http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930 Martin was doing nothing illegal. Cops have already confirmed that 8 months ago. Quit pulling shit from your ass. It'll get red and chapped at your rate.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

You have proved me right as I said you would.

You will now do it again.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

Neither is being a moron, but you insist on it.

Where do I insist on it? Apropos of nothing it might be time to point out that I'm not the OP in this thread.

Calling you a moron for not spotting that would just be gauche though; we'll just call it unfortunate instead.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are a liar. You claimed that you were trying to "educate" people, after demonstrating that you don't want that to be done at all. Therefore, any claim that you favor education is by definition a lie.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like to fight a losing battle?

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground." Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.

For starters, plain old harassment isn't legal. But the overall manslaughter issue is still more significant. If you're behaving in a criminally negligent manner that leads to someone's death, then it's manslaughter, which, since death resulted, would make Zimmerman's actions illegal. All this is only provided that his story is completely true. His story may not even be true, and the jury may not believe it. We're discussing this as if everything Zimmerman is saying really is true, and I think he should be guilty of manslaughter even in that case.

Martin was doing nothing illegal. Cops have already confirmed that 8 months ago. Quit pulling shit from your ass. It'll get red and chapped at your rate.

I know Martin was doing nothing illegal. What's your point?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Being kicked by three much smaller guys here. Not a chance I could have pointed at even one, whoever is in front of you while you are on the ground has a lot of control over your hands, if you can do fine manipulation in front of yourself you are not being attacked ferociously. I barely noticed the other two. You have to get on your feat before you can do anything but block.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only arrogance when unwarranted, but I wouldn't trust someone such as yourself to make that judgment.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

There was another set of bruises/damage on his other knuckle as well. Either way, the police report, EMS report, autopsy, his doctor's report, and police photos corroborate his side of the story. This is not rocket science.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do we take a 17 year old's bragging seriously anyway, if they can't show he did it, what the hell is it supposed to prove? If they can, they don't need bragging.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Not if it's fat. If it's muscle and increased bone mass it kind of is significant. 15 lbs of muscle contracting can move a thousand pounds or more. In any case, you're the one who was making a big deal about the fact that you could beat your dad even though he outweighed you by 15 pounds.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Steps for success:

1) Look through thread for my posts

2) Read posts

3) read links in posts

4) Realize you're wrong and swallow your tongue

Just because I'm an asshole doesn't mean I'm wrong

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

I thought that, since the source was from a mind exactly in line with yours and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-Martin, you might respect it a bit more. In any case, the actual details of Martin's football career and its end have been repeated all over the place. The way it's reported often leaves the impression he was still a football player, but never explicitly says so. I doubt very much that you actually have any authoritative source saying that Martin was still a football player. It was probably vague, but you didn't read it that way and it stuck in your head. Your impression is, nevertheless wrong. Martin stopped playing football at age 14.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

By all reconstructions, testimony and other means available to the court, Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

Yes, it looks like he probably was at some point. The question is, was he still like that when he was shot right through the heart?

The example you gave in your last post was no different than the previous examples you gave. It involved a someone in the commission of a crime being confronted and attacking, then being killed. Martin was not committing a crime.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal either. That was a typo on my part. You have no idea what you're talking about, and Zimmerman is essentially the only witness. The other ones completely corroborate his story. You're basically saying Zimmerman is guilty. I'm saying that he's an idiot who killed a minor, but he's going to walk based on existing case law and evidence in hand. You're just making shit up.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Yeah, because the autopsy report on Martin says anything at all about evidence found on Zimmerman. You know, I'm getting pretty sick of my intelligence repeatedly being insulted by a little toad such as yourself given that you're clearly a moron.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

I'm saying that being an idiot and killing someone through your idiocy with no real justification for the situation you got yourself into is actually a crime, SYG law or no. I also haven't brought it up much, but none of the witness reports are particularly reliable, so it largely is just Zimmerman's word. There is no particular reason why a jury is going to implicitly believe hopped up bully who killed a minor.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

Don't recall seeing that in the autopsy report.

Also, no the "police report, EMS report, autopsy, his doctor's report, and police photos" don't corroborate his side of the story. They imply that a fight did take place. They don't say anything about Zimmerman's claims as the exact circumstances.

Re:Blame the victim much

[mysidia]

But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?

If there is not absolute proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, then in that situation, Zimmerman should be released.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are as stupid as you are dishonest, it is necessary for me to point out that I have not at any point commented on whether you are right or wrong about the Zimmerman/Martin case. You don't know what my opinion on that is and you never will.

Instead - as you would have already realized if you possessed even a moderate degree of reading comprehension skill - I am pointing out that you lied about having a desire to "educate" people. That you were lying is proven beyond any possibility of doubt by your reaction to voss's post above; it served the purpose of education better than every single post you've made, and yet you shrieked indignantly at him for making it.

Oh, and you're not an asshole. You want everyone to think you are (that's the real purpose of your posting here). But it's not working; everyone can see the scared and insecure little boy that you really are. And because you're far too dim to figure out how to properly project the image you want to, they always will.

Now continue to prove me right with more of your fumbling attempts at aping tough-guy talk from bad TV.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Martin was beating someone in the face and bashing their head into the ground, with no testimony or evidence to contradict. That's battery brotha

The case I just linked to, which you clearly didn't read, was the result of the FRIEND of the guy breaking the law being shot. The friend confronted the bike guy, punched him, and was shot. Not to different from what happened to Martin. The friend was breaking no laws until he started punching the bike guy

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

Violence is never a legal response to a nonviolent provocation.

In most places, even those with "retreat" provisions, you are allowed to use violent response when you fear for your life and have no other choice. If you are hiding in your closet during a home invasion, and they burst into your room, they haven't done any "violence" against you personally, even if they broke the law to trespass. You are in almost all locations, allowed to use deadly force if you believe your discovery would likely lead to your death, even before any violence is done against you or explicit threat is made.

Also, direct threats allow a violent response in many cases as well.

Also, picking a fight (assault and battery) that turns into your victim trying to kill you allows for you to defend yourself against.

So it's "legal" to kill someone if you assault them first, so long as the justified homicide rules would have otherwise have been met?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you've pegged me 100%. go back to your cave troll. I do care about educating people. I just care more about being a dick to them. It's laughable you think you can dictate my own opinions to me.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

There is nothing showing Martin touched Zimmerman. For all we know, when Zimmerman started patrolling armed, he had is "response" planned and deliberately fell backwards in an attempt to cause damage to justify the prior assassination. There's nothing that indicates otherwise. From what little was published of the autopsy, there was no damage to Martin's knuckles or Zimmerman blood on Martin.

Re:Blame the victim much

[pod]

The only thing that does matter is the outcome of laws. And right now, the outcome of Stand Your Ground Laws is that if you're ever in a confrontation with no witnesses (or very pliable witnesses), make sure to kill whoever is confronting you.That can't possibly work long term.

Objectively, that's just common sense. If you're ever in the position where you're seriously hurting someone or fighting for your life against an intruder or attacker, you're best off to finish the job, so to speak, so there is no witness/victim to contradict your lies, or to supply lies of their own. This outcome has nothing to do with stand your ground laws.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

I read a summary of it that indicated no bruising, but one small cut on one finger (on the second segment, not where it would be from a punch). Is the actual full report available? I haven't seen that yet.

Re:Blame the victim much

[markass530]

yea, unfort the law isn't applied equally, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been wrong on every point except his football playing days AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN ACTUALLY PROVE THAT. Clearly I am the moron.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

It is usually but Florida's law is not stringent in this regard. The state has to demonstrate beyond a doubt that Zimmerman murdered the kid, so yeah it kind of does, especially when the evidence is generally exculpatory in the defendant's favor. There's no one to dispute his version of the events. He is going to walk, whether or not he deserves to walk. /that means that Zimmerman has the evidence on his side

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

If I were the prosecution, I'd leave the deceased out of it. Zimmerman has a history of following following blacks and only blacks. I'd set up a pattern of behavior that sets him up as a serial killer that just managed to get caught on his first kill. Then, in closing, after the defense set up Martin as the devil, harp on the point that the dead person is easy to attack, as he was dead, and the attacks on Martin are because Zimmerman thinks him less than human, a scourge to be wiped out, murdered and those like him murdered again.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bit.ly/PiRF8M

Also I'm guessing that you've never thrown a punch before either. The 2nd segment of your finger would most definitely show markings if you'd done so

Re:Blame the victim much

[91degrees]

The thing is, you're not the prosecution, and neither are the defence. They have no idea where the prosecution is going to go so they have to be prepared..

Re:Blame the victim much

[mysidia]

In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker.

In most jurisdictions, you have a right to defend yourself and other people using force, and under certain conditions, where it is justified, force that could potentially be deadly.

You don't have a right to use force for the purpose of killing or inflicting injury upon anyone, but under the conditions where force is allowed, force may legally be used that has a risk of that.

If you are assaulted or attacked, and your attacker happens to die, as a result of wounds inflicted by your legal self-defense, then the attacker is responsible for their death or injuries.

Unless you had provoked/exacerbated the situation or applied force that was obviously not required. Force involving shooting an 'attacker' who had surrendered, or was already incapacitated or wounded, would be demonstrably unnecessary.

In any case, if you are ever put in a situation where you actually must use force to preserve your very survival. The ultimate legal ramifications might be the last thing on your mind; would you actually choose to potentially let an assailant kill you, over ensuring you survive and accepting the risk of being charged with a crime?

Re:Blame the victim much

[wonkey_monkey]

Being kicked by three much smaller guys here.

And yet you can still find time to post to Slashdot.

Re:Blame the victim much

[aevan]

Can't speak for the anon, but I misread yours the first time as to saying 'call 911 if being assaulted instead of fighting back'. Took a second read to get it right.

I know mine was partially biased due to another thread on how 'your life isn't worth taking anothers' and such. Couple that with a narrative shift where 'response' refers to Martin to Zimmerman following, or Zimmerman's to 'Martin's attack', and I thought you were saying ZImmerman should have called 911.

I assume though, that the anon did the 'logical procession' where while you're calling 911 you get jumped..and so you 'lost initiative', so Martin's attack was the right choice. Would fit with the anon's 'pigs are the enemy' worldview.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. You are a sad bewildered individual who has obviously never been in a life threating situation. I bet you feel guilty about masturbation since it implies the death of your living sperm cells.

I live in a country with the highest *violent* crime rates in the world (SA - excluding drug-related murders in Mexico). Violent home invasions followed by rape and torture/murder is commonplace. Rape of 80 year old women is common place. The hacking to death of entire families (including chilren) is commonplace. Even rape and murder of children has become so commonplace it barely makes the news.

Deadly force to protect your and your family's life is merely a necessary transaction.

Quid pro quo, you stupid ignorant cunt.

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Hey you're a moron in other parts of the thread as well! Leave your GED in law at home and save yourself some humiliation.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if Martin was a criminal, then the outcome is that the world is richer for it.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like one of these weak lilly white apologists trying to make up for the slavery of blacks by whitewashing black crime.

Martin was a criminal.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

AND THERE IS NOTHING TO DISPUTE HIS CLAIMS. Ergo (that means therefore in Latin) his testimony with evidence that supports his claims leaves the prosecution with an impossible task of proving Murder 2 instead of manslaughter or letting him walk, which should have happened months ago. Zimmerman was a fucking dumbass for what he did, but that doesn't mean he was legally wrong. Beef with Florida's legislators if you want to do anything.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a selfish little piece of shit that only ever thinks of himself. All you do is take without ever giving back. How long are you going to suck off the teet of your poor mother? I can't fucking believe you won't even get a part time job to help pay for your selfish and childish pursuits. It took your mother months of saving what she could from her second job you don't even know about just so you could have that computer for school... and how do you repay her generosity? By pirating pornography and constantly jacking off into her new towels! You're a sorry excuse for a son... she should have aborted you... but when the man who raised you found out she was pregnant he wouldn't allow it even though he isn't really your father. He regrets that decision ever since he realized you were gay, never had a girlfriend, and still a virgin, you can't even throw a fucking football to save your life, you lazy dismal excuse for son. All you do is expect people to wait on you like you're some kind of royalty, when everyone who knows you just thinks of you as a pain in the ass. Why can't you mow the lawn once in a while? Why can't you empty the damn dishwasher, or take out the trash without being told 20 times? Why can't you clean up after yourself? Why can't you take a fucking shower every day like normal people. You're the weirdest fucking retarted creeper I've ever laid eyes on... ever heard of a toothbrush? Your breath smell like wet dog and your clothes smell like you've been rolling in dog shit. You'll never amount to anything, you talentless, mindless sheep.

Re:Blame the victim much

[91degrees]

Who gives a damn who or what I sound like? Doesn't mean I agree with them. That's called an ad hominem.

I quite like the idea of a legal system that takes account of all the evidence before declaring someone guilty.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Search his home? For WHAT?

The shooting happened OUTSIDE, there is nothing INSIDE that would help determine what happened.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Cederic]

Yes, it's perfectly normal for people to walk around like a thug in a gated community (especially one he didn't live in).

What the fuck does "normal" have to do with it?

It's a town you don't normally just walk around in.

Could you explain to me how you traverse the area without walking, if you lack an automobile?

Anyway, why didn't anybody shoot Zimmerman after he left his car and chased an unarmed man on foot? After all, he was acting aggressively while walking through the area carrying a firearm.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

It's only arrogance when unwarranted, but I wouldn't trust someone such as yourself to make that judgment.

Actually, it's not.

Being arrogant and being right are not mutually exclusive positions.

If you think it is, I'm not sure you understand what arrogance actually means.

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

Hey you're a moron in other parts of the thread as well! Leave your GED in law at home and save yourself some humiliation.

Hah. Nice attempt to backpedal. You just managed the forum equivalent of tripping over your own feet while walking and then looking at your watch to try and cover it up saying "I meant to do that!"

I'll take that as a sign that you've lost the argument.

Re:Blame the victim much

[__aaqvdr516]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

There are many variables that you seem to be skipping over.

Re:Blame the victim much

[niko9]

Shooting someone who is on top of you, beating your head into the ground, would likely result in getting some of that person's blood on you, don't you think?Shooting someone who is on top of you, beating your head into the ground, would likely result in getting some of that person's blood on you, don't you think?

As a paramedic of 16 years who has seen more that a few real gun shot wounds, I can say you don't even get bleeding sometimes. And sometimes you still only might get a trickle of blood. That could have easily been absorbed by clothing.

And with today's 9mm jacketed hollowpoitn ammunition, you won't even get an exit wound. The bullet enters leaving a small hole and then begins to expand as it encounters soft tissue, organs and bone thus dumping its kinetic energy within the body.

So it's entirely plausible that Zimmerman walkd away from the shooting withou as much as 1 drop of Martin's blood on him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[NeutronCowboy]

The problem is that Stand Your Ground laws extend the position of legitimate self-defense from fighting for your life to "someone is scaring you". Which is much, much, much more subjective.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

I was bashing the other guy's head on the concrete pavement

Does attempted murder have a statute of limitations in New York? Because that's what you just admitted to.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I ever say they were mutually exclusive. I said it's only arrogance when unwarranted. A =/= B

Re:Blame the victim much

[jo_ham]

It's arrogance whether it is "warranted" or not.

Like I said, it seems you don't understand what the word means. You also forgot to log in - try to be more careful next time.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

I hav not myself, but my uncle was. Unluckily for him he was a armed security guard in a crappy part of town. He was hit in the head with a brick and then attacked while on his back on the ground. He shot two of the four assailants from the ground, killing both. He has no ability support himself and will be on anti-seizure meds for the rest of his life.

My only regret is that he missed the other two.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief this discussion has taken a lot of posting. I've apparently hit a 24 hour limit on how often I can post, so I'm posting anonymously. Probably a good time to step back and take a deep breath or two. My handle normally is tragedy.

People have been convicted of murder without so much as a body in evidence. Just because the only person who could refute his claims is dead doesn't mean that he's going to be believed. The fact that he killed that other witness isn't actually going to make his story more believable.

As far as the prosecution goes, considering how this was handled from the start, I think it's possible that they're setting themselves up to fail intentionally. In the long run, we'll just have to see. Zimmerman might get off or he might go to jail. I stand by my opinion that the details surrounding the shooting, provided Zimmerman is telling the absolute truth, fit the definition of manslaughter.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Sumtingwong]

Your facts seem to be a bit skewed (possibly to show bias?):
- The police knew that they had a shooting victim, not a homicide (that is determined in a court of law).
- How do you know he changed his story?

Where are you getting all this information? From what I have read, the only person who changed Zimmerman's story is the media.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Reached posting limit, so posting as AC. Normally tragedy.

The stringent laws that you're talking about may turn out to not even apply in this case. From my point of view, they seem to only apply if you edit the timeline to cut out everything happening up to the physical altercation, and then only if you believe Zimmerman's story absolutely, which may not end up happening. There are a number of reasons not to believe his story. For example, after listening to the 911 tape, the jury may decide it was Martin yelling out for help. Also, they may decide that the period of time for which the yelling for help occurred was curiously protracted and uninterrupted for the action Zimmerman described.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon due to posting limit. Normally tragedy.

The case you linked to, which _you_ clearly didn't read involved a stabbing, not a shooting. From the article:

Garcia, armed with a knife, had chased down a thief who had broken into this truck and stole his radio in Little Havana in January. With one fatal thrust to the chest, Garcia felled Pedro Roteta.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom ruled Garcia acted in self-defense because the thief swung a bag filled with heavy car radios, and a medical examiner testified that "a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one's head would lead to serious bodily injury or death," her order said.

You may have been confused because the article was a follow up talking about the guy who got off due to the stand your ground law being shot by a stray bullet.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

If Zimmerman was brandishing his gun while following or immediately before confronting Trayvon, it may well have been illegal, and could be reasonably interpreted as an imminent threat of bodily harm.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Zimmerman was brandishing.

Zimmerman's story is that Martin saw the gun while Martin was sitting on Zimmerman and pounding him. The gun was in Zimmerman's waistband at the time; the news stories haven't said anything about whether it was in a holster or not. I presume so, but who knows.

In my state, brandishing is illegal. In fact, while open carry isn't specifically illegal, in practice you had better carry concealed; because if anyone sees that you have a gun and feels fear, you can be charged and convicted of brandishing. I can think of scenarios where this is reasonable (a Mafia guy opening his coat and flashing a gun at you is pretty clearly a threat), but I don't think it is reasonable if some guy reaches for food on the top shelf at the grocery store, a pistol is briefly revealed as the coat inches upward, and someone freaks out and calls the cops.

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

I think you meant to say was from what little published of the autopsy, there WAS damage on Martins knuckles.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/

Re:Blame the victim much

[shutdown -p now]

I don't think anyone has claimed that Zimmerman was brandishing.

Well, of course. The only take on the situation so far has been from Zimmerman himself, because he's the only guy alive to tell the story. That's precisely why his story shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

You're an idiot.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

Of course he should, because if there is no proof beyond any reasonable doubt, then he would (should) be declared not guilty of the charges, and set free. He will be convicted & sentenced only if the state makes the case beyond a reasonable doubt that what Zimmerman did was NOT self defense.

The investigation and trial is to determine if there was wrongdoing - if there wasn't any wrongdoing, the charges will be dismissed and Zimmerman will walk away free.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Your desperate sarcasm is proof that I do indeed have you pegged 100%. You are a meek and submissive little boy trying to act like a gruff no-nonsense hero, and failing miserably.

Your tired variations of "u r troll" are even less clever than your weak attempts at insults. More to the point, they are lies, because you have only ever used them to deflect facts that you don't want to believe.

I absolutely can dictate your opinions to you, because I am simply repeating back to you what you've already revealed your opinions to be. You stated explicitly that you do not want education to happen at all. Every claim to the contrary you make is yet another easily-exposed lie.

The reason you lie is because you know you're too stupid to be able to form an intelligent argument. No other reason is possible. You tell yourself you're doing it for "amusement" and similar teenybopper excuses, but you know that to be a lie as well.

You have proved me right as I said you would. You will now do it again.

Re:Blame the victim much

[AK Marc]

I saw a similarly editorialized statement that was exactly the opposite. To protect the integrety of the case, they are deliberately tainting the jury pool with lies, rather than the truth?

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

That's right. Florida is one of those jurisdictions where you have the right to use deadly force when you're in "reasonable" fear of death or great bodily harm. "Reasonable" is determined by the jury after the facts.

The jury might decide that Zimmerman had reasonable fear. Or they might not, and they might convict him of murder.

Based on my experience, the harm of getting beaten up like that isn't great enough to justify killing an opponent. If I were on the jury, I might decide that Zimmerman wasn't in "reasonable" fear.

It's like killing someone over a schoolyard fight. When you throw a gun into the situation, someone gets killed.

Bernie Goetz wasn't in danger of being killed. He was in danger of being robbed. While he does appeal to a vigilante sense of justice, one of his robbers wound up with a spine injury crippled for life. The robber was a thug and he deserved some punishment, but he didn't deserve that. Goetz wound up spending most of a year's sentence in jail.

So because Florida is a law-and-order state, Zimmerman might wind up getting sent to jail for 20 years with some kind of mandatory sentencing guidelines. He doesn't deserve that either.

But I think if Zimmerman had a choice, he would rather have taken the beating that night than have to go through what he's going through now.

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

If you are assaulted or attacked, and your attacker happens to die, as a result of wounds inflicted by your legal self-defense, then the attacker is responsible for their death or injuries.

That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If your self-defense was legal, you're not responsible. If your self-defense wasn't legal, you are responsible. What's legal? Who decides? Being legal depends on acting "reasonably". What's reasonable? Who decides? Being legal depends on the facts. What are the facts? Who decides?

If you pull a gun and kill somebody, you're gambling that afterwards, you'll be able to establish in court that you were legally defending yourself and legally killed him. As the Zimmerman case shows, the circumstances are usually ambiguous.

In any case, if you are ever put in a situation where you actually must use force to preserve your very survival. The ultimate legal ramifications might be the last thing on your mind; would you actually choose to potentially let an assailant kill you, over ensuring you survive and accepting the risk of being charged with a crime?

It's rare for most middle-class people to be in a situation where they have to defend their life against an attacker. It's more likely for them to get into one of these fights like Zimmerman was in where they act in the heat of the moment, without thinking. I think Zimmerman would agree right now that he would have been better off taking the beating than taking the legal problems he's in right now.

Would you rather get beaten up by Martin, or would you rather serve 20 years in jail?

My point is that when you throw a gun into the situation, you're more likely to end up killing somebody illegally, and serving serious prison time, than you are to save your own life.

Re:Blame the victim much

[mysidia]

Your life is no more important than anyone else's

Importance is relative to the person making a decision about ordering. Most everyone will view their own life as more important than some unknown person.

But it's also irrelevent to this matter -- you have the right to defend your life, when necessary, with force, even force that might place your attacker's life in jeapordy.

If someone attempts to apply deadly force to you, there will be circumstances where you will definitely die, if you do not respond with force that has a risk of killing your attacker.

It is essentially a certainty that if you don't defend against the attacker, a minimum of one life will be lost; yours, and anyone else this attacker will go after next.

If you do defend, using deadly force there is a possibility that a life will be lost; either yours, despite your defense, or the attacker's.

There's also a chance, your deadly force will just incapacitate the attacker, and you will be able to get help, there might be no loss of life then, which is an improvement.

Not to dismiss the possibility that both the attacker and the defender suffer mortal wounds, and neither survives. But even that is a gain in the sense, that the attacker is out of commission, and not going to kill anymore people.

Re:Blame the victim much

[russotto]

Would you rather get beaten up by Martin, or would you rather serve 20 years in jail?

I'd rather the law not restrict me to those choices, which is why I am in favor of allowing the use of deadly force in self defense.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

You will live and die an anonymous coward

Re:Blame the victim much

[tragedy]

The fact that you can write that immediately after a post from yourself claiming that the autopsy report on Martin would say anything about blood found on Zimmerman does seem to suggest that I'm not the one who's an idiot.

Re:Blame the victim much

[stewbacca]

I said nothing of the sort. I said if you don't follow somebody, they don't beat your ass for following them.

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

That's not your option. The law has to restrict people from shooting other people. Any law has to come down to allowing one person to kill another person only when the shooter had a "reasonable" belief that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

You can never tell when you kill the other guy that the legal system is going to decide that your killing was "reasonable." In most of these killings, the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury. The killing was usually motivated by fear, anger or stupidity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori . After the victim is dead, the shooter is facing a homicide charge.

People get into fights all the time. They seldom get killed in fistfights. Put a gun in the situation, and people will get killed.

You're looking at it from the perspective of the shooter.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of the innocent citizen who might get shot by mistake, or because some guy got mad at me. It won't do me much good to have you tearfully tell my survivors that you're sorry. I'll be dead.

You'll be facing criminal and civil charges (although thanks to the NRA, you may get off).

Re:Blame the victim much

[maxdread]

I don't walk in a bad neighborhood, I don't get shot/stabbed/robbed.

It doesn't mean we all hide in our homes for fear of going outside and it sure as fuck doesn't mean we place blame on someone who didn't initiate the violent act.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

I was bashing the other guy's head on the concrete pavement

Does attempted murder have a statute of limitations in New York? Because that's what you just admitted to.

Ever met a New Yorker? Beating them so hard their brains fall out wouldn't change the way they act one bit.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

1st degree murder...whaaaat? That's premeditated murder, like when you lie in wait for someone. Sorry, you have no business discussing this situation with adults.

If you pursue someone with a gun on your person and they end up shot dead with it, there is a prima facie case for premeditated murder. Your only sane way out is to call it self defence somehow, i.e. yes you happened to have a gun, but you only used it when the person turned psychotic and you thought he was going to kill you. Which is what Zimmerman is now saying.

Re:Blame the victim much

[russotto]

That's not your option.

Really? Many people have responded to a beating with a shooting without spending 20 years in jail.

The law has to restrict people from shooting other people. Any law has to come down to allowing one person to kill another person only when the shooter had a "reasonable" belief that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

No, actually; other standards are possible. Some have proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Going the other way, one could envision a standard of allowing deadly force in self defense against any assault.

You can never tell when you kill the other guy that the legal system is going to decide that your killing was "reasonable."

If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.

In most of these killings, the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Citation needed. One example doesn't make "most".

People get into fights all the time.

I don't.

They seldom get killed in fistfights. Put a gun in the situation, and people will get killed.

If people who go around being other people with their fists get killed by those people, that's all right with me.

You're looking at it from the perspective of the shooter.

I'm looking it from the perspective of the guy who is being beaten up. I don't want the law to take the position that I should take a beating rather than use deadly force against the person beating me.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you got my sentiment exactly backwards. I'm saying if you DON'T strap on a gun, go out looking for people looking suspicious, then continue to follow them even after authorities tell you not to, you DON'T end up being charged with murder.

I'm not saying you don't get shot if you don't go out in a bad neighborhood. I'm saying you don't shoot an innocent person if you don't go looking for them in the first place.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, shame on us who want qualified authority to handle issues of law enforcement and not dudes with big egos. Vigilantism has no place in a civilized society.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.

There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.

It just seems unlikely on the face of it that Zimmerman was in such mortal peril.

The fact that you're getting roughed up a little (or even quite a lot) does not mean you have the right to kill the person roughing you up. Self defence (at least here in the UK) has to be proportionate. If someone smacks you in the face, you can't go and get a sword and decapitate them or pull out your handy sawn-off shotgun and blast them in two. But you can certainly hit them back, and hard too.

Re:Blame the victim much

[nbauman]

That's not your option.

Really? Many people have responded to a beating with a shooting without spending 20 years in jail.

Yes, but many people have. The legal system isn't perfect, and isn't even reliable. I've seen evidence that about 1/3 of civil cases are wrongly decided. Once you go into court, you're throwing the dice. Guilty people go free and innocent people are convicted.

In fact, once you shoot somebody, even if you think it's self-defense, you're throwing the dice.

And of course the costs of defending yourself in a criminal trial are enough to consume all the assets of most middle-class people.

The law has to restrict people from shooting other people. Any law has to come down to allowing one person to kill another person only when the shooter had a "reasonable" belief that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

No, actually; other standards are possible. Some have proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Going the other way, one could envision a standard of allowing deadly force in self defense against any assault.

Straw man. Nobody in the American political discourse has proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Name one. There are absolute pacifists, but they've never been elected to office.

You can never tell when you kill the other guy that the legal system is going to decide that your killing was "reasonable."

If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.

That's right. If you're getting beaten up, you're not in a good position to tell whether deadly force is justified. If you use deadly force, you're liable to wind up with a 20-year sentence for homicide. Or you're liable to lose all your assets in a civil suit. That's my point.

I don't trust you to make a rational decision in the heat of the moment. You're going to kill someone who never would have killed you. I want to prevent you from carrying handguns around, if possible.

In most of these killings, the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Citation needed. One example doesn't make "most".

I just gave you one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori There are many others. There are handgun-control web sites where law students have compiled long lists of such cases.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has had lots of articles on handguns, given lots of data, and refuted the books defending handguns. One of the statistics I remember from JAMA is that more people use a handgun to commit suicide than to defend themselves.

People get into fights all the time.

I don't.

They seldom get killed in fistfights. Put a gun in the situation, and people will get killed.

If people who go around [beating] other people with their fists get killed by those people, that's all right with me.

People get into fights. It's hard to tell afterwards who was "responsible." Often the person who started the fight is the one with the gun, and kills the other person.

If you take the gun out of the situation, the victim doesn't get killed. If you put the gun back into the situation, the victim does get killed. I think that the victim gets killed more often than the aggressor. For that reason, I would restrict the possession of guns. Of course the NRA won't let that happen. So we have to accept innocent people getting killed.

You're looking at it from the perspective of the shooter.

I'm looking it from

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

The "appropriate" response to someone following and harassing you is to call the police, and report the incident, and ask for a police officer to come and assist you. Not to turn around and coldcock your harasser.

Yes, I can see that would be the natural response for a 17year old black kid being hassled by a mad white guy with a gun and a bad attitude.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

Police didn't tell him shit, a 911 dispatcher did (hint, you are under no legal obligation to do a damn thing that a dispatcher tells you)

Legalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

If all you have is a pistol, then you go from fists to lethal force instantly when a certain threshold is crossed by the assailant. Since you can't be sure that the guy who smashed your skull into the concrete and is mounted on top of you will stop at any point, you pull the trigger and keep pulling until you're out of ammo or the threat is neutralized.

Only if you're a total fucking wuss. In most normal parts of the world, Zimmerman would have ended up with a few scratches and bruises and his pride hurt because he got beaten up by a teenager that he had provoked.. But because it's the US and this wuss has a gun, the kid is shot dead.

Yes, it's possible that Martin would have killed him with his bare hands, but it is extremely unlikely unless he had previous form as a genuine psycho (i.e. not just someone who listened to gangsta rap and wore a hoody)..

Re:Blame the victim much

[tehcyder]

How delightfully lofty and optimistic of you. Next time you're being beaten to death by a murderer and you have a knife or a gun you can use to defend yourself, I hope you remember what you just said and lay back and die like a good boy instead of harming some innocent brute to save your own life.

Out of Martin and Zimmerman, there's only one who has demonstrably killed another human being, and only one who has the chance to do so again..

Re:Blame the victim much

[Raenex]

Clearly I am a liar

Yes, you are. You claim you are here to "educate" people, yet when you make a factually incorrect statement about the law, when corrected you go into asshole mode.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Raenex]

Its called "paraphrasing"

You shouldn't use quotes in your "paraphrasing" if it can be confused with an actual quote.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

That all sounds nice as a hind sight view point but basic psychology shows that people aren't going to remember an event 100% [rarely even close to it]. Grab two people at the same event and have them detail out what happened at it and the stories will be different.

Memory of a chaotic event will be even worse as what they're focused on will change rapidly and they won't be necessarily very concerned with things like where they've been punched [adrenaline will make it so they'll hardly notice it unless it's a solid blow] or how far away someone is in a yelling match unless they're in physical reach at the time.

Because of all the missing details in the memory itself, the mind will try to patch them together in a reasonable way.
This isn't always correct, either.

This is also why eye witness testimony is extremely unreliable.

Re:Blame the victim much

[phlinn]

I would suspect the prosecution tried to portray Trayvon as an innocent, leaving them open to character accusations. Beyond that, the defense has more leeway than the prosecution.

Re:Blame the victim much

[phlinn]

What major flaws? Zimmerman hasn't significantly changed his story. out of the bushes vs out of nowhere vs from behind a car is not a significant change. They all indicate he didn't know where Trayvon came from.

Re:Blame the victim much

[phlinn]

People accidentally die from friendly fist fights. Requiring that I assume you will be lucky enough not to kill me whille beating my face is not reasonable, no matter what your survivor bias tells you.

Re:Blame the victim much

[phlinn]

Stipulating that our lives are equally value, by attacking me, the attacker has declared both our lives to be worthless. he's given up any reasonable protection from me attacking him.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

At academy they tough us blows to the head is deadly force. Bashing a guys head into the concrete you may as well have pulled a gun on him in terms of the degree of force you used.

Re:Blame the victim much

[russotto]

Yes, but many people have. The legal system isn't perfect, and isn't even reliable. I've seen evidence that about 1/3 of civil cases are wrongly decided. Once you go into court, you're throwing the dice. Guilty people go free and innocent people are convicted.

Once I'm being beaten up, it's worse than throwing the dice; I'm depending on a combination of luck and my attacker's mercy.

Straw man. Nobody in the American political discourse has proposed a standard of "no deadly force in self defense no matter what". Name one. There are absolute pacifists, but they've never been elected to office.

I know of no officeholders with those beliefs, but it's certainly been brought up in this very comment section. And the more mainstream view -- which you apparently share -- of prohibiting possession of the means of deadly force is tantamount to the same thing.

If I'm getting seriously beaten up, I can never tell if the other guy is going to kill me.

That's right. If you're getting beaten up, you're not in a good position to tell whether deadly force is justified.

The standard is not whether the other guy is actually going to kill me. The standard is whether or not I believe he is going to kill me or inflict grave bodily harm upon me, and whether a reasonable person -- one in my position as victim, not a disinterested observer -- would believe that he was going to be killed or have grave bodily harm inflicted upon him.

I don't trust you to make a rational decision in the heat of the moment. You're going to kill someone who never would have killed you. I want to prevent you from carrying handguns around, if possible.

You would take that decision from my hands and place it in the hands of my attacker. In order to save the life of a violent criminal, you would require me to accept being physically beaten by that criminal, beaten to any extent that criminal wishes, up to and including my own death. I don't find that to be a reasonable position.

I just gave you one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori There are many others. There are handgun-control web sites where law students have compiled long lists of such cases.

And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You said that in "most" self defense killings, "the shooter really wasn't in danger of death or serious bodily injury". That requires two numbers, one being the number of justified self defense killings, and the other being the number of mistaken self defense killings. Anecdotes about mistaken ones don't cut it.

I don't think the law is going to accommodate you. You can't shoot the other guy just because he's beating you up. There are barroom fights and traffic confrontations all the time. Legislators don't want to turn them into homicides.

Have you ever been beat up? Gotten into a fight with a guy who seriously outclassed you and was looking to do you harm? Had your nose broken, your head bashed on the ground, and your attacker is on top of you and continuing to hit you and you can't physically stop him? Maybe you're a physically powerful person and don't get it, but the fact is in that situation, a reasonable person would in fact be in fear of great bodily harm if not death.

If you're getting beaten up and you kill the other guy with a gun, you're going to have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Most likely you didn't. Most shooters act in the heat of the moment.

If you're not acting in the heat of the moment, it's probably not self defense.

Afterwards, on calm reflection, that fear doesn't look reasonable. Add a gun to the fight, you wind up in jail for 20 years.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Talderas]

Most likely, not. I think you misunderstand what bullets do. For the size of the round that we're talking about, the bullet hole would be a hole. It wouldn't rip flesh on entry and certainly doesn't have the penetration to cause an exit wound. So what would happen with such a wound? Well, first the cavity created by the bullet would begin to fill with blood and the blood would the leak out of the wound with the majority of it being absorbed by the clothing of the victim. It would take a bit for blood to accumulate to the point where it would begin to drip and would also require that during the entire time, Martin was above Zimmerman or for Martin to have been laying across Zimmerman. For blood to splatter out onto Zimmerman, Martin would have almost certainly needed to be shot in a major artery.

If you consider what Martin probably did after being shot, there's a high probability that he got up to run away after being shot leaving only a second or two (insufficient for the blood to drip) where blood could have gotten on Zimmerman.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Talderas]

Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.

I hadn't heard that. Thanks. I also would not be surprised for a small caliber bullet injury to have blood on the shooter either.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Americano]

Your point assumes many facts not yet in evidence.

1) That Martin was being "hassled";
2) That Zimmerman was "mad";
3) That Zimmerman had a "bad attitude";
4) That 17 year old black kids have some sort of "natural response" to the prior 3 baseless assertions;

Care to substantiate any of those? Or should we just assume you're an idiot who's pre-ordained Zimmerman's guilt from the moment you learned he was carrying a gun, and that no facts or evidence to the contrary will ever move you?

Re:Blame the victim much

[Stuarticus]

Those poor put upon white folks, will the discrimination ever end? First they had to give up their slaves, now this!

Re:Blame the victim much

[Stuarticus]

Like when you arm yourself, pursue someone then kill them?

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

You don't read signs very well then

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Yeah the laws will apply

Re:Blame the victim much

[redmid17]

Not according to Florida law, which is the whole point of the discussion.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Belial6]

Wow. You are a pretty hard core racist. I have never met a single white person who owned a slave. You haven't either. Even if either of us had, you lumping all of the people from a race into a group, and attributing the actions of a few people to everyone in the race is the textbook definition of racist.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you read your own pet and your idiotic lumping of whites and blacks into groups to be manipulated...

Re:Blame the victim much

[Whorhay]

You are correct, but there is a heavier burden on the prosecutor to prove every element of the crime they accuse, which is second degree murder I believe. In the state of Florida that includes proving that the shooting was criminal in nature, which means disproving self defense.

I saw a man convicted of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder Monday because the state completely failed to try and make a case that the accused was trying to murder the other guy. They had one witness who had been shot himself and whose testimony varied in major ways from his sworn statement, say that the accused fired more shots at him and the other victim. But they presented no other evidence to support this, not even pictures of the car that by all rights should have had extra holes in it. The only reason he was convicted at all was that in court the accused admitted to having shot both men without warning because he felt his life was threatened. The Jury found that fear basically unreasonable because the accused was sitting behind the other two in a car where he was the only armed individual.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Onuma]

The point is that you simply don't know whether or not someone is going to cross that threshold from just a beating to severe bodily harm and/or death.

If you genuinely fear for your life, would it not make sense to pull the trigger? It may be cliche, but I'd rather "be tried by 12 than carried by 6"...YMMV.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Whorhay]

"That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If your self-defense was legal, you're not responsible. If your self-defense wasn't legal, you are responsible. What's legal? Who decides? Being legal depends on acting "reasonably". What's reasonable? Who decides? Being legal depends on the facts. What are the facts? Who decides?'

I just finished jury duty so I can tell you exactly who decides that. The jury does. They are the finders of fact. That means they review all of the evidence presented to them and decide what the facts of the case are. And one of the most critical facts in our system is that the accused is always innocent until proven guilty. So while people often say you have to prove self defense in court it is actually the opposite. The prosecution has to prove exactly what they charge happened, and that usually includes proving that whatever defense is being used isn't valid because of the evidence.

I just sat on a case where a man was found guilty of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder. The prosecution did not make much of a case and in fact the only reason the accused was found guilty of anything was that he testified himself to having shot the two men and not giving them any warning while he was in a position of strength over them when there had only been verbal threats thus far.

Last time I heard when Zimmerman was asked he said he regretted what had happened but not his personal actions. He has claimed from the start that he was in fear of losing his life. I would rather risk ending my assailants life than gamble on losing my own when on the recieving end of a beating that is potentially fatal. Spending time in prison requires that you still be alive, and staying alive is on most people list of critical priorities.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Whorhay]

Just to clarify:

We, the jury, did not find the accused person's actions reasonable for self defense because the threats were purely verbal and could not have been acted on at that time.

But we did not find the charge of attempted murder reasonable because the only evidence that the accused was attempting to kill one of the victims was testimony from the other victim. That evidence was not collaborated in any other way, they could have presented more bullet casings or testimony from other witnesses but such was not presented.

Honestly I was a bit surprised because I expected to have to point these things out to my fellow jurors in deliberation. Instead when we took the initial vote to see where were we all stood on the charges all but one or two people agreed on the two charges before us. It really has given me much more confidence in my fellow human beings and their capacity to sit as impartial jurors.

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you attack your fellow man you become nonhuman and no longer deserve any rights (other than legal rights, and that is once you are safely detained) or respect from me or anyone else who is a potential victim. Deadly force when your life is in danger can never be too great or too liberally applied. If someone broke into my home and threatened me I would empty my gun on them, reload and hold their corpse at gunpoint until the police arrived. After all my life is in danger until the police have placed the corpse in handcuffs and a coroner had deemed him dead. Then I will begin the lawsuit against any of his holdings and property to pay for damages done (bullet holes, cost of bullets fired, wear and tear on weapon, broken door, blood cleanup, personal time wasted, loss in home value due to the crime, any lost work, legal fees, mental trauma etc).

Re:Blame the victim much

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is tragic about a criminal mind being silenced.

Re:Blame the victim much

[HornWumpus]

If he was brandishing and TM still swung on him then TM was a moron and the whole case is a Darwin.

A person with a gun is called 'sir'.

Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Dyinobal]

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.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[ATMAvatar]

Usually law enforcement has to read you your miranda rights beforehand for your speech to be admissible in court, though I admit I'm a little bit light on information as to how it works post mortem like this.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[porges]

That refers to statements you make to the police after being arrested, not to previous statements.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[LordLimecat]

Miranda rights are there to protect you from self incrimination to the police. Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Zcar]

Tweeting and posting Facebook are protected free speech in the US. They are also generally public speech and can certainly be used against you as a defendant in criminal court if the content suggests illegal activity. The First Amendment protection is only against being prosecuted for the speech itself. The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination doesn't apply to such public, voluntary statements.

But, ultimately that doesn't apply here since Trayvon isn't the defendant. This is about the use of public statements by the other parties by the criminal defendant. Miranda warnings don't apply here. They apply when the police arrest you and presumably charge you for a crime. When did they arrest or charge Trayvon?

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[ToadProphet]

Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.

Not really. They are still subject to the rules of evidence, and can be excluded for numerous reasons.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Trayvon isn't on trial, therefore his speech is not being used against him, so miranda rights are pointless

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Zcar]

But generally not on self-incrimination grounds, which is the protection the Miranda warning about "anything you say" is about.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Ironhandx]

Not quite. Law enforcement has to read you your Miranda rights before *that particular law enforcment officer*, or set of officers can use your speech directed towards them in a court of law.

Getting arrested is generally a stressful event and the reading of the Miranda rights is supposed to cool you down a bit.

Miranda rights don't apply to anything written down for all to see in a public forum. They don't even apply to seized letters so long as proof of you writing the letters while not being coerced to do it can be established.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Ironhandx]

Sigh, worded poorly, "speech directed towards them" should read "Speech made in their presence"

I really need to learn how to hit the preview button instead of the submit button for reviewing my posts >_>.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[cloudmaster]

As I understand it, if you voluntarily disclose information, the Miranda Rights are irrelevant. So, public postings would definitely be admissible. Never mind that Treyvon's not on trial, and you don't usually Mirandize the prosecution. :)

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[stewbacca]

Just how much tweeting did Martin do after he was dead? And at what point did the police read Martin his Miranda rights? Before or after he was dead? Wait....what are you even talking about?

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking summary, idiot.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since it isn't being used against Martin. Duh.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Except of course in this case the words are being used to against the dead victim....

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

That refers to statements you make to the police after being arrested, not to previous statements.

So what you are saying that they otherwise couldn't use your previous statements in court? Like if you told your friend that you planned a crime, that's inadmissible as long as that happened before the arrest?

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Trayvon isn't on trial, therefore his speech is not being used against him, so miranda rights are pointless

In some ways he is though. Aren't they basically hoping to prove that he was a violent person to excuse the person who killed him?

So it is his reputation that's going to be on trial and possible enough to charge him with something eventually. He just happens to be beyond the reach of the law

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

The more important question is why it is relevant. Zimmerman didn't have access to either his tweets or FB page postings when he decided Trayvon Martin was "up to something". Whatever Martin said or did before that night is irrelevant because (as far as anyone has been able to prove) he was just coming back from the 7-11 at that moment.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he is on trial. In this case the defence is self defence from a dangerous violent thug.
It really is more about the deceased than the accused.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[IHateEverybody]

There is one "ground-breaking" aspect as Miranda rights are intended for alleged criminals. Trayvon Martin on the other hand is a *victim* of a crime. On the other hand, it's not uncommon for the defense to put the victim on trial in cases like this one. So while it may not be groundbreaking, it is sad.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[sjames]

Since Martin isn't on trial, Miranda is irrelevant.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

What you just said is akin to saying that a murder must be commited while being in custody to be a murder. No, a statement made to a friend before or after the offense, wvwn while you are not in custody can be used as evidence. A person making a public statement whether in a public or private forum can be used as evidence. It actually has nothing to do with Miranda, it all has to do with the collection of edivdence and how it is handled. For example, this statement can not be used as evidence had it contained and statement that could link myself or anyone else to that body I have sitting in a shallow grave in my back yard. No Miranda necessary, I just provided a statement that can be used as evidence against me.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction to the above: "wwwn" (is actually not a workd and a mistake)
the word "not" in the sentence "For example, this statement can not" is incorrect, and should not be there. the sentence should read: For example, this statement cab be".

I've moved the body, and instead am having a BBQ this weekend, so you can now disregard my previous statement about a shallow grave.

Anyone up for a free BBQ?

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, this is talking about things the *victim* had said publicly something totally different.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Miranda rights are there to protect you from self incrimination to the police. Things you have already said publicly (not to the police) are AFAIK fair game.

Miranda rights aren't rights- it's just stating the rights you already have. Technically the police shouldn't even have to read them to you, you ought to already know them. But by requiring the cops to state them upon arresting someone, it makes it clear that both the cops and the suspect are aware of the suspect's right to keep his mouth shut and speak with an attorney.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[drinkypoo]

That refers to statements you make to the police after being arrested, not to previous statements.

So what you are saying that they otherwise couldn't use your previous statements in court?

Uh no, they're saying the exact opposite. Your reading comprehension is for shit. I can see why you don't log in.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[forrie]

How does Free Speech come into play when a minor is involved? From what I read, Trevon was 17 at the time of his passing, which makes him a minor. A parent can "take your Facebook away" and other forms of discipline, and wouldn't it be hilarious if a minor could sue their parents for infringing upon their constitutional rights LOL Oh, the trouble I could have caused on that one! :-)

I think the defense wants his tweets, records and other items to demonstrate character... to determine whether he had oppositional tendencies, etc., to further support their position.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally irrelevant. You are free to incriminate yourself at any time. The Miranda rights simply INFORM you that you can incriminate yourself so there is no ambiguity. If you say, "I'm going to set fire to that house" and then the house actually is set on fire, that statement certainly can be evidence.

Re:Tweeting, and posting on facebook

[tehcyder]

Trayvon isn't on trial, therefore his speech is not being used against him, so miranda rights are pointless

And why isn't he on trial? It's political correctness gone mad. Time after time, the white man gets victimised for simply defending himself, and the black guy gets off scot free despite being, er, black. Your country is going to the dogs, I tell you.

Criminals are not big on reading warnings

[BoRegardless]

As in; "Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"

Clairvoyance time again!

[ultranova]

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?

Re:Clairvoyance time again!

[Fjandr]

It'll be pretty much the same.

The few people who are actually capable of putting together coherent descriptions of what should reasonably happen given certain assumptions will be shouted down by whoever has decided they know what happened. Regardless of how the case turns out, there will be a large group of people who believe that justice was perverted for political purposes, and the result is more proof that there is a vast left-wing/right-wing conspiracy to destroy group X.

We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.

Re:Clairvoyance time again!

[Doctor_Jest]

We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.

You have basically described the entire media coverage of the event (including Al Sharpton's stumping for Treyvon). What is the truth though, is the media has been very blatant about keeping information that is detrimental to the "little boy buying tea" argument they've portrayed throughout the course of the investigation/trial. They called for Zimmerman's arrest two days after the incident. They called for "justice" as if the automatic result of this incident is Zimmerman's fault. They frequently refer to Zimmerman as white, in order to incite more racial tension. (Race should never have factored into this case...) If Zimmerman's white, Halle Berry's white. Yet she refers to herself as "African American"... so why is the media insistent upon keeping that thread alive?

Sure things have gotten quieter as other sensationalist crap hit the fan, but mark my words, it'll flare up again once the trial's over. And it will be the media stoking the fire if Zimmerman isn't accused of murder (and a hate crime)... hoping to cover more Watts-like or LA-like riots after other verdicts that were actually racist and unjust based on the evidence...

I have no idea who is correct and who is not. The funny thing is, the only people who DO know are Treyvon and Zimmerman. One of them is dead. So getting the totality of facts will be impossible. That doesn't stop MSNBC, etc. etc. from turning this into another bloody racial conflict.... I for one am tired of showboating politicians wearing hoodies on the floor of the House of Representatives. Let justice take its course. Let the courts work. Stop stoking tension for votes and street cred.

I don't get it

[Yaur]

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.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

IANAL, but the fifth amendment only protects the person on trial--witnesses aren't permitted to "plead the fifth."

Re:I don't get it

[Yaur]

IANAL either, but as far as I know the 5th amendment protects everyone all the time. Meaning that the government can never compel you to incriminate yourself even if you are not accused of a crime at that moment.

Re:I don't get it

[thaylin]

Correct, but you cant use the 5th to prevent incriminating someone other then yourself, unless doing so would incriminate you.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

1) She's not on trial, and therefore it can't be self-incriminating.
2) They didn't compel her to say anything, she posted it publicly.

Re:I don't get it

[e3m4n]

but they can easily force you to give testimony by granting you immunity. The Miami girl can be protected from self incrimination but she cannot refuse to provide evidence if the only person she is protecting is a co-conspirator. The prosecution can decide that forcing her hand by granting immunity is worth the trade-off. If she still refuses to provide the information then she could go to jail for obstruction.

Re:I don't get it

[UnknowingFool]

5th Amendment protects citizens from being forced to testify against yourself in a court. These do not include any statements (especially public tweets) that you have said in the past. If you told a roomful of people how much you hated a murder victim, it's not against 5th Amendment rights for the state to call those people to the stand about what you said.

Re:I don't get it

[Attila Dimedici]

1) She's not on trial, and therefore it can't be self-incriminating.

Yes, it can be. If I am called to testify in your trial and I testify that I saw you kill someone while I was robbing your house, that would be self-incrimination. It could be used to charge me with burglary (or whatever the particular charge would be for what I testified I was doing at the time). The fact that I am not currently charged with something does not mean that honestly answering the questions put to me are not self-incriminating. Your second point is relevant to the situation.

Re:I don't get it

[arekin]

1) She's not on trial, and therefore it can't be self-incriminating.

This doesn't matter, you can incriminate yourself even if you are not being tried. Anytime you are under oath you are permitted to plead the 5th if you believe that it will incriminate you. Your testimony in one trail could be used as admission of guilt in another trial.

2) They didn't compel her to say anything, she posted it publicly.

This does matter, publicly stating things that incriminate you is just stupid.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL either, but as far as I know the 5th amendment protects everyone all the time. Meaning that the government can never compel you to incriminate yourself even if you are not accused of a crime at that moment.

That may be true, but it doesn't stop the government from using letters that you wrote against you. Or e-mails. Or texts or tweets.

Re:I don't get it

[tragedy]

However, a court won't have a problem compelling you to testify if the prosecution grants you immunity. The problem is that I'm also pretty sure that the court won't do a thing except try you if the the prosecution then decides to arbitrarily withdraw that immunity.

News For Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world is slashdot on this story? It's not remotely new for nerds or tech related in any way. Legal issues releated to tweets, fb posts are not new or interesting.

Re:News For Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Miranda Rights v2.0

[g1zmo]

"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as relevant as Zimmermans job history or criminal history

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."

It amazes me that so few people understand how truly dangerous social media is. Everyone who uses it is creating a permanent record of things that used to be hearsay. Even the most innocuous posts can come back to haunt you. Like any corporation, people need to be exceptionally careful about the image they present, even if they believe it to be private. Failing to so so could easily affect ones entire life.

For example, Take a fellow we just received a resume for. The gentleman had all of the qualifications we were looking for, and did quite well on a phone interview. Googling for this guy produced some pictures of what we presumed to be college gatherings that demonstrated extremely poor judgement on this guys part. Final result: no in person interview, they guy is on our block list, and he will never even know why he didn't get an in person interview. How many different opportunities is he going to miss out on that he will never know he missed because of those photos. Same thing goes for all social media postings. How long before Facebook decides to start "enhancing their revenue" by providing this kind of damning information to HR services for a fee. The company I work for wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay for such a "search", and neither would a lot of places. Facebook has almost no real risk of exposure because no HR department would want to publicize this kind of research, and people would have no way of finding out they had been the "victim" of such a search.

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Jiro]

"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."

This is to be used for the defense, not for the prosecutor.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[e3m4n]

I agree 100%.. once you post it publicly, there is no taking it back. You can't un-ring that bell. Think in terms of the novel 1984. The only thing safe from tampering is your thoughts. In that novel they convinced the populous that they had thought police to even spy on that.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe you got rid of your best candidate because of prejudice based on what he does in his private life. You're part of the worst scum of this Earth. Fuck you.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think somebody wouldn't mention to friends, relatives, etc that the company they work for uses it? That a disgruntled ex employee of Facebook or a company that uses it wouldn't mention it?

It would become common knowledge very quickly and open up a shitstorm of trouble for FB.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[MBGMorden]

So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?

I hate to break it to you, but almost all your other interviewee's did too. What we need to do - as a society - is recognize certain social norms. We already do to an extent, but its the silent code that its all ok until you get caught.

Having just read RA Salvatore's Homeland it reminds me of the Drow society - 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.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe their best candidate was too stupid to not post himself smoking a blunt while fucking a undeage girl for all of eternity to see

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this insightful? Oh right because when a black kid gets shot by anyone who isn't black, it MUST have been racism.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds more like they declined to interview him based on his poor judgment of partying... but of posting pictured that paint him in a rather unprofessional light.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[stewbacca]

I'm not sure anybody would ever want to work for you if you summarily dismiss people for things you find questionable. Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting? If not, why in the hell would you care? Do you want everyone to be a clone of you or your corporation? Do you not value individualism and the inherent strengths of hiring a diverse pool of employees? I'm pretty sure I can find something somebody will find questionable about you, but that's their hangup. Smart companies understand this and don't go on social media witch hunts when hiring candidates.

That, plus my social media is an extension of who I am. I'm proud of my accomplishments and of my personality, so I consider social media to be an asset. If you are an asshat with poor judgment, you probably aren't leading the type of life that leads to many great career opportunities in the first place. If you are an asshat employer trying to find things to dislike about a candidate, you're not the kind of employer many of us want to work for. Furthermore, if you can't tell a candidate is an asshat long before you decide to google them, then your hiring practices need some work.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[stewbacca]

Yeah, because that kind of guy applies for jobs that require a resume and interview....uh huh.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are he's shown throwing up at a party and OP will act like he has never done this in his life, or that he's a better man because it didn't show on Facebook (never mind the fact that everyone and their cat has a camera now)

Not that it matters, because you employ someone because of their skills, not what they do on their weekend. If the guy has pictures of him smoking a blunt in the server room it's a different story.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

So your company did an illegal background check and the candidate can sue you.

Thanks for putting that in writing.

That us why companies like Social Intelligence exist, a fair credit approved background check.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?

No where in that post did I say it was a party. In point of fact, it looked to be some kind of hazing ritual. It wasn't even the candidates involvement in the ritual that put the nails in the coffin. If it had been hearsay, we would have dismissed it. 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. The posting of the pictures were obviously thought to have been private, but through one stupidity or another, the pictures were made publicly available. The moral of the story, is never trust any repository of legally admissible evidence that you, yourself, cannot legally set fire to and destroy.

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

You don't think somebody wouldn't mention to friends, relatives, etc that the company they work for uses it? That a disgruntled ex employee of Facebook or a company that uses it wouldn't mention it?

It would become common knowledge very quickly and open up a shitstorm of trouble for FB.

You don't think its common practice for HR to do a simple Google search for every applicants public profile? So what if HR is looking at Facebook postings as well. Its not like people are compelled to post on Facebook. With a global economy, there are thousands of applicants for every position. Of the ones that are qualified, there can often be little to differentiate, so HR will use whatever means at their disposal to whittle the selection down to just a manageable number. Why else do you think job listings are so damn specific these days. They're not trying to get just that one guy out of a million, they're trying to weed out the other 999,000 applicants, and get down to a number they can work with. They are looking for any reason at all to disqualify, and thereby simplify the task of sorting through the remaining applicants. Facebook wont care because the vast majority of their users wont care. Slashdot != normal society.

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing illegal about googling or searching for people on FB. Its SOP at every HR department now.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before Facebook decides to start "enhancing their revenue" by providing this kind of damning information to HR services for a fee. The company I work for wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay for such a "search", and neither would a lot of places. Facebook has almost no real risk of exposure because no HR department would want to publicize this kind of research, and people would have no way of finding out they had been the "victim" of such a search.

This is the exact reason that I closed my Facebook account the day before Facebook's IPO.
There won't be too many quarters of we-failed-to-make-money between the IPO and "revenue enhancement" schemes.
I want no part of that.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Velex]

What's really going to bake your noodle later on is that GP probably partied in college, too. Maybe the guy he rejected didn't want to work for hypocrites.

For instance as much as I've posted about being trans here, if a potential employer finds my UID and rejects me on that basis, I don't want to work for them either. Doesn't waste my time with an interview that might end in "you're really a guy?!?!?!omg1111eleven GTFO COPS ON THE WAY." (Similar has happened to me, cops were not amused by the guy who called them.)

After all, if my employer is so worried about what I do in my free time, there's going to be one hell of an awkward conversation when he finds out that my three week trip to Europe is really three weeks of me recovering from sex change surgery. If this boss is female, I could be assaulted and/or accused of rape when she realizes a "man" was using the same bathroom as her for the past say 4 or 5 years or however long it takes me to save up after I move on from my current employer. (I'll need to stock up on popcorn for when I start living as a woman with a female name, even at work. A few sexist women I work with are going to head asplode and the drama's gonna fly.)

Better to just avoid the whole drama and let employers like that live with their second-rate but squeaky clean employees.

So, in other words, I completely agree with you, and I think the free market will sort it out.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

I'm not sure anybody would ever want to work for you if you summarily dismiss people for things you find questionable. Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting? If not, why in the hell would you care? Do you want everyone to be a clone of you or your corporation? Do you not value individualism and the inherent strengths of hiring a diverse pool of employees? I'm pretty sure I can find something somebody will find questionable about you, but that's their hangup. Smart companies understand this and don't go on social media witch hunts when hiring candidates.

People do stupid things. Young people do lots of stupid things. We all know that, but as a corporate officer, our job is to protect the company from risk as best we can. An employee with a demonstrated history of publicly bad judgement is a risk. No company will willingly take on risk if it doesn't have to, unless its officers are derelict in their duties. If an applicant is the only one who can do what is needed, the company might choose to take them, but these days, you get many times the number of applicants you used to. You show me a company that doesn't do a thorough background check as part of its hiring practices, and I'll show you a company that hasn't been burned yet. Everything an employee does has the potential to reflect negatively on a company. Just ask the secret service about their agents behavior in south America. Those people did, the things they did, on their own time, but it still reflected negatively on their employer. Funny how that works.

I bet those agents were dynamite fun to be around though.

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe their best candidate was too stupid to not post himself smoking a blunt while fucking a undeage girl for all of eternity to see

...sounds like you're just some bitter nerd that can't stand the idea someone could smoke weed, get laid and hold down a tech job.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

Furthermore, if you can't tell a candidate is an asshat long before you decide to google them, then your hiring practices need some work.

You missed the point: Long before the applicant gets the chance to say anything, their background check has already been completed. The only reason the guy I mentioned even got a phone call was because he was recommended by a current employee. Otherwise the background check would have been done first, and the interview would never have taken place. Normally inside recommendations move an applicant into the interview pile even if they do not meet 100% of the qualifications (saves us a bunch of effort if we can pass along a guy who the team is willing to take without having to wade through the resume pile. We can just interview the one candidate; If they pass, we skip the rest of the applicants altogether. The background check is a formality, but it still gets done for this very reason.)

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're really saying is that you wouldn't want him leaving evidence of all the illegal shit you do at your company.
Now I get it.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tragedy]

Which apparently includes bouncer for illegal house parties. A job from which I now seem to recall he was fired from for being too aggressive and brutal. That's certainly relevant, but I'm pretty sure that it's probably not going to be admissible.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

Not that it matters, because you employ someone because of their skills, not what they do on their weekend.

It's far from the truth. Experienced managers hire good people first and skilled people second, if not third. The reason is simple: you can train a junior engineer to become senior engineer. It takes time but it can be done. On the other hand, you cannot take a bad man and train him into being a good man. And you never want to give keys to your offices and access to your code to a bad man.

With regard to weekends, if a person is bad on one day of the week he cannot be good on other days of the week. Exceptions are possible, but you can't count on them. If a person takes drugs on Sunday, do you think he will just heroically suffer through the withdrawal for the rest of the week? If a person needs illegal drugs but you aren't paying him millions, don't you think he will steal from you to pay for his habit? If a person is seen doing risky, illegal things, will you invest $100K into his training, knowing that he can be arrested at any time?

Even the pattern of employment matters, let alone the illegal sex pictured on Twitbook. If a candidate can't hold a job for more than a few months he is not viable, and his resume goes into trash. Even if he is a genius you simply can't have him for long enough to realize any business advantage.

If the guy has pictures of him smoking a blunt in the server room it's a different story.

What if he walks 20 feet, leaves the building, and smokes his blunt outside - and then returns to manage your precious network? Do you think the amount of THC in his blood would be any different? A known druggie is 100% unhireable - nobody wants that liability, for many reasons. If you are a drug user or otherwise "a bad man" in my opinion, I will not hire you. Since the reasons of rejection are never reported, you have no case in court. Businesses have no duty to hire anyone; the only thing they can't do is they can't reject candidates on protected grounds (gender, skin color, etc.) - and no smart person will ever do that. I don't care what your skin color is; but you must be a good person and a good employee. That's all that it takes, really.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is the only reason for these problems. No more Google, no more indexed AND archived tweets, no more cached Facebook content, no more 20 years archive of Usenet posts.

No other search engine crawls as deep, or cares so much, about what amounts to just off the cuff internet comments.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[trout007]

You are operating under a false principle. I'm 40 years old so I'm considered and old fart. When we get job applications we do a Google or Facebook search and all I see is kids posting things online that I did when I was a kid and I would of posted if I was their age. I remember one kid had a great resume. We looked online and he was in a metal band. He had wild hair and facial hair and piercings. We found videos and he was basically screaming at the top of his lungs. Pretty funny stuff. So we gave him an interview and he came in all clean cut and gave a great interview. We gave him the summer internship. A few weeks in we started calling him by his band name as a nickname. He said "That's so weird, I'm in a band with that name!". We didn't tell him we knew all about it for another week and he was freaked out.

I would never hold what someone posts online. We all have our demons and if there wasn't a criminal record I really don't care.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Fjandr]

Possibly, but he also knows what the content of the pictures were while you don't.

There are a lot of things I could find out about a person regarding how they spend their off hours, and many of those would give me pause in hiring them. Many would also absolutely preclude them from being hired even with an otherwise excellent resume and great interpersonal and interview skills.

The statement regarding not hiring someone because of pictures wherein the content was not actually described doesn't say anything concrete about Geoskd. Telling someone they're part of the worst scum of the Earth because they refused to hire someone based on knowledge you're not privy to, however, says volumes about you. The fact that you were unwilling to log in to make the statement says even more.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Fjandr]

Drinking a couple beers with friends is not the same as gang-raping a group of freshman girls. There's a lot of area that could possibly be covered under "poor judgment at a college gathering." The former is relatively low on the scale, while the latter is pretty high. He didn't elaborate on the poor judgment in question, so assuming it was "because they partied in college" is not the most intelligent of assumptions you could make in this situation.

Yes, most people partied in college. Absent a concrete statement that it was the partying, and not other behavior, which ruled him out is a tad bit presumptuous (to put it mildly).

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Fjandr]

Was he a Nazi, having sex with goats, or attending a Klan meeting?

Perhaps he was all three. The content was not actually described, merely the setting in very general terms. It's thus illogical to castigate someone based on further assumptions, because nobody but the original poster actually knows what the conduct in question was.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'll answer later with something more serious, but if you honestly think that someone who smokes a blunt on a friday needs a motherfucking withdrawal to not smoke on Monday you are not in a position to judge ANYONE in this world, let alone decide if they are worth hiring.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you were unwilling to log in to make the statement says even more.

This says a lot about you than both me and Geoskd combined. You're not even willing to take my opinion at face value until there is a useless handle attached to it. Go away and let the adults discuss.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

People skills are skills. Your whole first paragraph is worthless.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

Maybe I'll answer later with something more serious, but if you honestly think that someone who smokes a blunt on a friday needs a motherfucking withdrawal to not smoke on Monday you are not in a position to judge ANYONE in this world, let alone decide if they are worth hiring.

If I pay my own money to someone then I can have any requirements I want. This is how the world works, regardless of what you or others think about it. If I don't want drug users around then there won't be any (that I know of.) Note - that would be regardless of their skills.

It may be a shock to geeks who use light drugs now and then. They may think that it's no big deal. Keep thinking that. Meanwhile business people avoid drug users at all costs - even if they, themselves, use the same drug on occasion.

One could think of some contrived case where the only man on Earth who can do some absolutely necessary job (say, save the world) has to be hired no matter what. That would be a fun subplot in a movie. However in real life when a company posts a job ad it receives hundreds of resumes, from all kinds of people - from young and old, from green to experienced, from exact matches to very loose matches to the job req. If a person is known for their "undesirable behavior" then the resume is trashed right away. Nobody in a business would want to be responsible for such a person because if that person steals something valuable to finance his troubles guess what, the manager who knowingly hired him may be fired or demoted soon. A business is not a kindergarten, it's not interested in helping people. A business is primarily interested in safely growing the profits. Drug users and the word "safely" do not intersect.

You again may want to point out that smoking some grass is very different from injecting heroin (or whatever it is that they inject these days) into one's veins. But you know, I'm not interested in details. I'm not a specialist on drugs, and I have no oversight over doses or choices of drugs that a prospective employee takes. Furthermore, in this labor market I don't have to care. There is plenty of "clean" applicants to pick and choose from; those that are known to be "unclean" won't be even considered. Take drugs and kill your career, it's that simple. You may disagree with that approach - but who cares what you think? You'd need to argue with tens of thousands of business owners, HR workers and hiring managers - and they have no good reason to even listen to you. Don't like that? Don't use drugs then. Or at least delete all your social accounts and be quiet about illegal things that you do. At least you will get a chance to be judged by your work.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?

No where in that post did I say it was a party. In point of fact, it looked to be some kind of hazing ritual. It wasn't even the candidates involvement in the ritual that put the nails in the coffin. If it had been hearsay, we would have dismissed it. 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. The posting of the pictures were obviously thought to have been private, but through one stupidity or another, the pictures were made publicly available. The moral of the story, is never trust any repository of legally admissible evidence that you, yourself, cannot legally set fire to and destroy.

-=Geoskd

Apparently they were looking for people to work at their company that are competent at hiding the criminal activities...

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[geoskd]

So what you're really saying is that you wouldn't want him leaving evidence of all the illegal shit you do at your company. Now I get it.

Every college party I ever heard of was a massively illegal act. That didn't stop people, since kids will be kids, but it doesn't change the facts. Law enforcement just looks the other way, by and large. When you leave a permanent record that you are doing illegal things, you open up Pandora's box. I will submit that most people don't obey posted speed limits, but its another thing to make a video of you demonstrably exceeding the speed limit by 30 MPH, and post it on YouTube. The first act is common enough and with low enough risk to be somewhat tolerable. The second is a deliberate flaunting of the law that is both extraordinary and dangerous. Or did you think that anyone should be able to do monumentally stupid things, brag about it, and walk away without consequences?

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're really saying is that you wouldn't want him leaving evidence of all the illegal shit you do at your company.
Now I get it.

What a hopelessly dense moron you are.

Would you hire someone who takes photos of himself performing criminal acts and then posts them to the internet?

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Take drugs and kill your career, it's that simple.

Only if I'm stuck in whatever retarded hiring process you manage. Feel free to think I have no career if it makes you feel better about yourself. Meanwhile, I'll keep monitoring our thousands of networking nodes in my rather prestigious position where they can't afford to replace me.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously I'm kind of new to Slashdot so I need some help figuring out how to stop manually pasting a sig (consisting solely of a repeat of my own username) into the body of my post. Everyone else seems to have figured out how to post normally without a sig, but I'm kind of stupid, so I'm hoping someone can tell me how to stop doing it.

-=Geoskd

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[blackraven14250]

There's an overgeneralization that a lot of people make here though, expanding this unhirable status to include everything from hardcore drug addicts like you mention (reasonable) to just having a Red Solo Cup in a picture with 3 friends at your own house (unreasonable). That's why people really don't like the idea of prying into social media for information on employees - there's a few valuable things that you might get out of it (which you can, for the most part, find out via other avenues), but there's a whole slew of unknowns regarding the particular intersection of the HR worker's personal judgement and an individual's lifestyle that makes it a sensitive action to take.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

Meanwhile, I'll keep monitoring our thousands of networking nodes in my rather prestigious position where they can't afford to replace me.

Absolutely. I have no knowledge of who you are, who your employer is, what you are doing on Sundays, and so on. And I don't need to know that. I'm glad that you and your employer have good working relations.

Only if I'm stuck in whatever retarded hiring process you manage.

There are many hiring processes. A three-man shop will have a vastly different policy than a multinational corporation with 100,000 employees in 50 countries. A new man in a 3-man shop can destroy the entire company if he is not careful and vigilant and honest. A new man at a multinational corporation can only steal some peanuts, to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars, which is inconsequential, and the police will take care of the rest. This is quite obvious - in a larger company importance and influence of each additional worker is smaller; facilities are far apart; bank accounts are separate; even locks on doors at production facilities only allow some employees to some areas; and of course internal auditing service and internal security service are taking care of all edge cases. But even then we read once per year that this or that bank was nearly destroyed by an employee who gambled bank's money and lost.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

There's an overgeneralization that a lot of people make here though, expanding this unhirable status to include everything from hardcore drug addicts like you mention (reasonable) to just having a Red Solo Cup in a picture with 3 friends at your own house (unreasonable).

I personally wouldn't fault anyone for being at a party, or for drinking alcohol there. As long as the man is not a professional alcoholic (that happens!) the drug is legal, common, and the employee cannot be blackmailed over that. (This is a serious consideration when your employee has to have security clearance.)

That's why people really don't like the idea of prying into social media for information on employees

I'm telling everyone that social media is evil, for one reason or another, and that no one should have an FB account. Perhaps that is throwing the water out along with the baby, but if you want a single, simple advice then that's it. Anything else would require a lot of labor in considering what and who may need to know, and who can be trusted with this or that risky photo without immediately sharing it with the whole world. I personally have no social accounts because I cannot be bothered to do this work - even if I trusted Mark Zuckerberg, which I do not.

there's a whole slew of unknowns regarding the particular intersection of the HR worker's personal judgement and an individual's lifestyle that makes it a sensitive action to take.

There is that. My own bias is against drugs, for example. Other people may have objections against candidates who like target shooting, or who hunt animals, or who date opposite sex, or who date the same sex, and so on. Legal protections against discrimination do exist, but there is no G-man behind the shoulder of every HR worker who singlehandedly decides what resumes go into trash and what get forwarded to the hiring manager. If anyone in the long chain of hiring dislikes you for any reason whatsoever, your resume will never end up on the desk of the manager - and without documented, in writing, proof of the reason for doing so you cannot prove anything. HR has special phrases for that, such as "More qualified candidates were selected." In reality, if a team in a company is largely homophobic, hiring a gay is not such a great idea; the opposite would be also true. By the law the gay can't be denied employment; but by realities of life he would be not accepted as a team member, and he would be forced to quit soon after.

But there is yet another consideration. Twitbook contains photos of people doing things that are illegal or that appear to be illegal. It could be driving way over the speed limit, or street racing, or drinking too much alcohol, or giving what appears to be alcohol to a person that appears to be a minor, or engaging in what looks like sexual activity with an apparent minor, and so on. People do not think of these as of crimes. Perhaps in their mind these are small infractions that are harmless as long as nobody was hurt. But if an HR person sees these photos, not only the candidate won't be hired - the HR person by law may be forced to report the finding to the police. This is not what your drinking buddies would ever do; after all, they knew that the "apparent minor" in the photo is your wife who is not minor at all. But the HR person wouldn't know that; neither would the police - who will investigate, and that may end up with your arrest if something doesn't add up ("Hey, she said she is 21! I didn't know that her birthday was two weeks after the party!")

In the end, it would be better for most people if social media did not exist. Public sharing of texts, images and sounds of arguably legal activity is not helping anyone. But people tend to share exactly those images, trying to impress their peers. Lacking this information, HR would have to fall back to what they know about the applicant - what he says in the resume, what his past employers say (very little nowadays) and what the applicant himself tells at the int

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[russotto]

but there's a whole slew of unknowns regarding the particular intersection of the HR worker's personal judgement and an individual's lifestyle that makes it a sensitive action to take.

One of the few photos of myself on my facebook page is a picture of me with an empty birdbath-sized margarita glass in front of me. Judging from my expression, I drank that margarita (and, in fact, I did. And it was very good. Unfortunately, the restaurant is out of business now.). Another photo is me with two beers in front of me. I leave these up there to ensure that I never get hired by the sort of tight-assed company which would judge me according to essentially-innocuous pictures on social media.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[blackraven14250]

In reality, I think a better option than not having any social media is to be open about the culture of the company, departments, etc. I know I don't want to work somewhere where there's a clear cultural bias against any and all alcohol consumption or some other truly insignificant trait, and they wouldn't want me in a company if there were such a culture, but I'd never be able to find that out until getting the job and being there for a while.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

but I'd never be able to find that out until getting the job and being there for a while

For that reason companies, starting at some size, all look the same. The cubicles are the same, the culture is the same... If you work in a garage alongside Jim, Bob and Dave, you can tell jokes of all kinds, from political to non-gender-neutral, and use any language you like amongst yourselves. But allowing that in a larger company is unthinkable. What if someone gets offended and sues for one billion trillion dollars? That happens. You can trust Bob because you know him and you are friends; but you cannot trust a random person even if s/he works for the same company as you do. This is triply so if big money is involved. Remember Herman Cain? His accuser got a bunch of money just to shut up and go away:

In October 2011, Politico reported that two female employees had complained about inappropriate behavior by Cain during his tenure at the National Restaurant Association. The women reportedly accepted financial settlements from the association which barred them from discussing their allegations further.

This is exactly what we are talking about here. Perhaps Cain made a joke, but that joke fell on gold digger's ears. Culture of openness and friendship collided with the culture of greed. You can't reconcile those; and the common denominator is your familiar featureless cubicles and the bland corporate-speak and corporate-think, all designed to not give anyone an excuse for a lawsuit.

And that is also the difference between a 3-person company and a 300-person department. A fourth man in a 3-person company would become a family member for all practical purposes. A 301'st man would be just another speck of dust on the vast landscape of a large company.

But returning to the problem at hand, applicants that are about to be hired are often given a tour of the facility, so that they can have a look at the culture of the company and decide for themselves if they are a good fit or not. Applicants are also expected to talk about that and ask about the company's culture. It is very important because an angry loner with violent tendencies may not fit well in a 10-man team where everyone is happy and is singing and talking. I, for example, wouldn't want to work at a company where formal clothes are required. I also wouldn't want to join company picnics, or gatherings at eateries. I can easily work with people who love these things - as long as I'm not expected to be there.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[tftp]

I leave these up there to ensure that I never get hired by the sort of tight-assed company which would judge me according to essentially-innocuous pictures on social media.

These photos are legal and you aren't doing anything out of the ordinary there. Bars are full of people like that. Alcohol is a drug, and I personally don't ingest it, but in this world about 100% of population take it from time to time. I am not entitled to my own facts or to my own planet; hence, I accept the inevitable.

But as blackraven14250 said, you will be judged by random people with random ideas about what is right and what is wrong. For example, HR is usually staffed with women. If the HR worker has (or had) an alcoholic husband who used to beat her, she may project her hatred toward the man and the habit onto you. Perhaps without intentionally wanting to harm you - but you will be harmed nevertheless. You will never know what you missed; a resume sent and ignored carries zero bits of information back.

That's why I say that one shouldn't post anything on social media. It only leads to you being judged by someone else's rules, and you not only cannot face your accusers - you do not even know that you were tried and found guilty. The best course of action is to give them nothing. If they want something from you, let them ask - and then you will decide, on case by case basis, what they can be given, if anything.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Fjandr]

Obviously the statement says more about me than either of you, though one thing it doesn't say is that I didn't take your opinion at face value. If that had been the case, I wouldn't have bothered replying in the first place. The Internet is full of these people, so even sometimes tenuous reputations of a single account which cannot be followed off-site is worth more than it being absent. That shows a person is willing to stand behind what they say, and the manner in which they say it. Assuming you are the same AC, your response further underscores my point, especially given the continued lack of any attempt at civility.

Being offensive and patronizing is easy when you don't have to worry about knowledge of your behavior following you around. It must be an interesting world you live in where the adult thing to do is throw insults anonymously. I'm glad I don't live there.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm sorry, what process did you go through to make sure that you had the right guy? Was the John Smith you're interviewing really the John Smith on Facebook? Even if it is Quitzacohetl Habsburg the third, you know very little about how common certain names are.

You want to be really careful about those kinds of searches. I hope for your HR department that that level of incompetence doesn't spread elsewhere.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

An anecdote for an anecdote? Both of the major companies I have worked for do the same thing, except that they generally shy away from hiring the sterile unimaginative kind of people that you have described yourself as. The places I've worked desired people who are more than task fulfilling automatons; they are the ones who just cannot keep up, so your only obvious recourse is to artificially limit the capability of their peers so the automatons feel "comfortable".

Remember that only YOU can reasonly apply your scale of shame to another person; when you try to apply it for other people to tint their perspective, you come across as a helplessly incapable idiot and you will leave a lot of heads shaking.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck, sincerely. (Yeah, I deserve the off-topic downmods.)

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll retract some of the comments I've said, as you seem to be a lot less of a binary person than I originally thought. I also don't want to be seen as unreasonable of a person as how I'm currently posting.

I get your point about not hiring people who can be dangerous. It seems we disagree on something more subtle, whether it's "right" or not to let these things change how we see someone in an interview. I think it's wrong to judge someone based on their weekend stories, so I'll stick to my opinion about that. I'll retract my comments about your hiring process, I disagree with it, but it's not retarded. It makes sense in a way I disapprove of.

In the interest of full disclosure, I smoke weed, never have at work and hopefully never will. I tell friends not to put pictures up, but if it happened and I got refused a job due to that I would feel really uneasy about it (especially where I live).

Thankfully my resume shows my worth in a rather unique way. I won't disclose why because you could easily tell who I am. Who knows, maybe I'll work for you one day.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't have to go out of your way to mention I'm AC and how that undermines my position. That's why you didn't get the civil AC. Maybe next time we meet you will deserve it.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Fjandr]

Nowhere did I say it undermined your position. What undermined your position was the majority of my comment, the parts you conveniently did not quote or address.

The part you did quote was my statement regarding your lack of civility from the start, but nice strawman.

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

I can not support this attitude. It appears as if your company hires people that lack character. How does this reflect on you?

Re:Miranda Rights v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just as bad as me, you just won't admit it because you like to feel superior to others on the internet. I grew up past that age. Go away, nobody cares but you.

Public vs Private and Expectations

[ohnocitizen]

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.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[e3m4n]

they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..

I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.

I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:

  "during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".

This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.

Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods

Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

And evidence that Trayvon was in a fight club would give credence to the zimmermans statements that trayvon was winning a physical fight with him and travon beating the hell out of him.

A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.

If you look at the 911 calls and peg the locations to the maps- Travon- was last seen over a minute only 300' from his house. It takes about 20 seconds to cover that distance.
Zimmerman continues talking to 911 for about a minute after last seeing Travon with no evidence he had seen Travon again yet.

Travon didn't go home. It's possible he got pissed off and returned to the scene.

The main scenario where Zimmerman could be guilty and culpable is if Travon had been hiding and zimmerman spots him and goes over and puts his hands on travon to attempt to detain him.

If on the other hand Travon got pissed that Zimmerman was following him, they exchanged heated words and travon attacked first- then zimmer man killed in self defense. You don't hit other people. You don't key their cars. If there is a problem, you call the police. Travon could have called the police and said someone was following him.

17 year olds are unfortunately adults in body but unwise children in temperament and logical thinking.

This situation is tragic but if I were on the jury, based on the evidence I've seen so far, I'd have reasonable doubt. And in america, you have to prove people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[DNS-and-BIND]

None of this matters. The only thing that matters is that Zimmerman the white (son of a Peruvian mestizo) is found guilty of murder. Any other outcome will lead to riots.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[tragedy]

Travon didn't go home. It's possible he got pissed off and returned to the scene.

It's more likely that he was hiding because some crazy person was chasing him.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods

The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.

Yes, I can see how 1 and 2 substantiate the mortal danger the killer "George" must've been in.
Actually, 4 and 5 only show highly indirect evidence of that either. Those can show the kid was a burglar, not that he was dangerous. (the indirectness is then in the "a caught criminal may be dangerous" -- which is highly dependent on the situation).

TL;DR: C/D student does not a violent kid make.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

You have reasonable doubt of what? That, perhaps, Zimmerman's life was in danger?
Or that it did not need to have been? Was he in a situation of his own making or not?

Jumping into a tiger cage and whipping the tiger will surely make him threaten my life -- probably to the point where I need to kill him in self-defence. Doesn't absolve my responsibility, now does it.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[DerekLyons]

. 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.

In the real world - there's no such thing as an "expectation of privacy" with regards to the court, only whether or not it is relevant to the case as hand. Which is as it should be, "I expected that to be private" rightfully provides no protection against the discovery of relevant evidence.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[ThatsMyNick]

Any other outcome will lead to riots.

Led by white men, no less.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[redmid17]

You're allowed to legally shoot the tiger, so yeah it does.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Doctor_Jest]

It's more likely that he was hiding because some crazy person was chasing him.

I guess he got shot in the back, then? No wait... he got shot while hiding in the bushes near a house.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

From the fact that Zimmerman lost track of Travon for over a minute
and continued to talk calmly to 911
and the fact that Travon was under 300' from his house and was still not there over a minute later after 911 hung up
and the fact Travon was on video in a fist fight club
and the fact of the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head
And the fact of Zimmerman's beat up face...

means i have reasonable doubt that zimmerman "started" anything. I've been on a civil jury and two criminal juries. I've found people guilty and innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a preponderance of doubt.

Standing there talking on the phone to 911 isn't whipping a tiger.
Asking a 17 year old what he's doing in the neighborhood isn't whipping the tiger.

Maybe more facts will come out in a trial.

But even if Zimmerman hit or held Travon does not negate the self defense killing if he was being beaten with Travon on top of him which is what the witnesses seemed to be saying. We'll see what they say when they are under oath.

There is a lot of other evidence which might come out in the trial too.

Based on what's been out there so far, I could not convince Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a reasonable doubt that Travon was beating Zimmerman severely and Zimmerman shot Travon in self defense.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

It's definitely a possibility. I can't say "more likely" but I can say possible.

But possible (and even more likely) doesn't convict zimmerman of 1st or 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[tragedy]

Well, if Zimmerman's story is true, Martin approached and confronted him about why Zimmerman was following him after Zimmerman lost him in the car and got out to search on foot. He didn't go home, so it looks like he didn't leave the scene and return, he was just out of sight of Zimmerman. Sounds like he was hiding to me.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[billius]

A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.

The autopsy showed that Martin was 5'11" and weighed 158 pounds at the time of his death. When Zimmerman was arrested, he was recorded as being 5'8" and weighing 185 pounds. The has been a lot of misinformation about the height and weight of both Martin and Zimmerman, with Martin's defenders claiming that Zimmerman weighed over 200 pounds (which had previously, but lost weight later) and Zimmerman's defenders vastly exaggerating Martin's height.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

>If on the other hand Travon got pissed that Zimmerman was following him, they exchanged heated words and travon attacked first

Wrong based on the current Florida law. The whole following part is reason enough that Travon has a right under Florida law to stand his ground. This is the whole confusing part of the Florida law and how it is being wrongly used here. And the ambiguity of the current law.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the GF and Zimmerman's testimony say otherwise

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

My problem:

You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun. You do not attempt to apprehend people while on neighborhood watch. You are neighborhood WATCH, not a sworn and trained officer of the law.

Everything about this sounds like Martin was a fucking idiot kid who liked to shoot off his mouth and Zimmerman imagined himself to be some kind of law dog who was going to bust this thing wide open.

Zimmerman also is putting tons of words into Martins mouth, and many of those words sound to me like bullshit - like a very, very bad script writer tried to write a part for scary black thug #2 or something.

I don't know what happened that night - I'm actually not even sure Zimmerman knows what happened that night at this point. I do know that Zimmerman is not helping himself and has not been helping himself this entire time.

I also know that it's good that this has been investigated and is going to trial rather than just being waved off as it initially was. A man is dead at the hands of another man, under unclear circumstances, and that Deserves an investigation and trial. If Zimmerman really was acting in self-defense (or at least is found to have been acting so) then he'll be fine. If not, he will be punished according to the law. Isn't that what should happen?

I am not a gun person, though I am somewhat realistic about guns and gun culture in the US. I don't think it is unreasonable for a man who used a gun to shoot another man to stand trial for that. I don't care about the racial noise, I don't care about the politics. I just want people who kill other people to be held accountable for their actions.

I actually am somewhat surprised at the number of people who post here and seem to be pro-gun and simultaneously bothered that Zimmerman is being tried. You would think responsible gun owners would be glad that we live in a nation of laws and that a man who shot another man under incredibly unclear circumstances wouldn't just be left free to walk on his own say-so. I mean, what if things had gone differently and Martin shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun? Wouldn't people want that to be investigated and tried also?

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[e3m4n]

I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.

as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?' :

I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.

Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.

Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.

Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.

so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.

An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[e3m4n]

I guess you didn't do a lot of research in the matter of the gun. Its not surprising considering how much the media wants to bias everyone on the issue. It was the cops that told him to carry a gun after being attacked by a pit bull while jogging with his wife nearly a year prior. Rueters actually did an objective piece on the whole thing including the history of zimmerman as much as 10yrs prior. The cops told him to buy and carry a gun because mace just wouldn't do anything except piss off the pit bull. It at that time he bought a Kel-Tech, a double-action-only brand designed for conceal carry usage. So the gun being in his possession is not an issue of premeditated aggression. He simply carried it everywhere due to the number of off-leash animals running around the neighborhood.

as far as your question about 'should everyone have to stand trial after killing another, even in self defense?' :

I have some issue with this. Mostly because no one is ever 'fine' even after acquittal. George has already lost his job and spent time behind bars with hardened criminals. IF he is acquitted he still have a pile of legal bills and no job to pay for them. Perhaps due to the notoriety of this case, people might make donations to help, but if it became commonplace.. defending your life could come at the cost of not being able to provide food and shelter for your family.

Allow me to paint a self defense situation where I think you would find it terrible we forced the shooter to stand trial.

Your a 26yr old woman. You eat right, take care of yourself, jog every morning. One morning, after a jog, and intruder breaks into your home attempting to rape you. He starts ripping your clothes off. You scratch is eyes and get away, running to the bedroom, the attacker in quick pursuit. You reach into your sock drawer, turn and fire, killing your attacker. You call 911 and 25min later the police arrive. They collect your statement, talk to your neighbors, take photographs of the body and collect forensics while he body bleeds out onto your bedroom carpet.

Normally you would go through rape counseling and begin putting your life back together. Not this time. About 6mos ago your state passed an anti-stand-your-ground law requiring criminal trials in every self-defense killing. You are now arraigned. Your rape-shield laws now are side-stepped because you've just been named defendant in a justifiable homicide case. Your boss now knows you were raped. Your co-workers look at you differently, though they try not to. Everywhere you look you feel like eyes are staring at you. After a few weeks the parents of the rapist go on the media and demand a release of bond, so you are forced to spend time in jail during your trial. The anti-gun advocates paint you as a harlot, luring attackers into your lair just to have the excuse of shooting them. They again call for the complete abolishing of all guns. Amidst the post-traumatic shock of the rape, you begin to feel the attack all over again, this time from every person you meet. You've now lost your job, due to spending time in jail and the negative press the media has been giving you. You've had to put a lean on your house to cover your attorney fees. Eventually you get acquitted, but because of the media hype, this has turned into a 9mo circus not a 2hr trial. You begin to wonder if being raped and murdered might have been the better option. You begin regretting defending your life at all and slip into depression.

so everything is back to normal right? You got acquitted, the rapist is dead, you lost your job, you cant afford your home or legal bills. Everywhere you go people know you and come up to you wanting to talk to you about the rape, which you only want to forget and never remember again. You've decided you have to move to a different town where people dont know your story so you can have a job that you can work at and try to get on with your life.

An investigation is different than a trial. The police had investigated the zimmerman situation and they felt it

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[erroneus]

I am not so certain of the notion of leading to riots these days.

There have been enough other cases... smaller ones, which paint other pictures.

Sure. There will be many blindly upset people. There will always be those people. We have to accept that and I'm pretty sure the courts accept it.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

I was wrong about 6'2.

The police report says 6'0 and 160. The autopsy says 5'11" and 158 pounds. It's possible both of those are accurate due to post death changes but 5'11" and 158 is good enough to address the folks saying Zimmerman had 100#'s on Martin.

I did some more research and the fight video from 8 months ago appears to have been discredited in the mean time.

Martin was fit and Zimmerman was still overweight and probably would have been 160 or less if he'd been as fit as martin. Probably less as Zimmerman was several inches shorter.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

That's an interesting legal point.

So if Travon stood his ground and was beating a losing Zimmerman, would Zimmerman be able to shoot in self defense for fear of his life or severe injury?

It seems like your statement would provide innocence to Travon but not negate Zimmerman's.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

It looks like the fight club video has been discredited in the time while I stopped following this case.

And martin was 5'11", 158lb, not 6'2. He was atheltic while zimmerman was pudgy at best, carrying a lot of fat, and from the 911 call was winded and catching his breath after running a short distance.

I said it in another post-- zimmerman should not have been carrying a gun while on watch.

The rest of my parent post still appears to be valid. Esp the timeline of the map+911 call and locations putting Martin about 300' from home and then Zimmerman talking calmly to 911 for over a minute without mentioning seeing Martin again. I only see to valid reasons for that. Martin was hiding on a porch or bushes very near by or Martin came back.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing the Sanford PD (and I do, live within 10 minutes of the area itself).. if Martin had shot Zimmerman, he would have already been tried and found guilty and would be rotting in a cell for life. That's not to even speak of the OTHER cases just like this that go unreported. There have been over 50 similar cases in Sanford this year, and this one is the only one that got any investigation at all because it got outed as the horrendously handled fuckup it is.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Sumtingwong]

Zimmerman had been on previous watches with a gun. He did not try to apprehend any others in the neighborhood previously and called the police. What makes you think that Zimmerman's behavior changed with this incident?

How is Zimmerman putting words into Martin's mouth? The only people that I see doing that is the press.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

I don't care what the circumstances around a killing are. Any taking of human life should be investigated and go to trial if it passes grand jury muster (which I meant to say in my previous post, but no edit function). Even the scenario you describe - emotionality should not influence things, and your entire argument is an appeal to emotion.

I know full well that after an interaction with the criminal justice system in this country people don't simply go on as normal. I consider that a problem with how we report the news in this country and how we politicize things. The fact that many people behave like massive assholes and try to use something like this to push an agenda is horrible, but I do not think that we should allow justice to be done or not depending on how riled up people get or how news organizations choose to drive up viewership. That is an insane stance. "We can't investigate this because reporters and people with an agenda might act irresponsibly and fuck up a possibly innocent person's life after they killed someone!"

If you take a human life, it should be investigated and go to trial as needed. Yes it sucks if you were legitimately defending yourself, and it can be traumatic, but another human being is dead at your hands, and we should never simply decide it isn't worth looking into, as was initially done in this case. I would much rather have to deal with an investigation and the fallout if it got publicity if I killed someone in self-defense than I would live in society where we let bullshit dictate our process.

With the gun, I don't honestly care if the police suggested he carry, in the same way he didn't seem to want to follow police suggestion that he not pursue Martin. My stance on the matter is that unless you are a sworn and trained officer of the law, you stay the fuck away from any interactions with possible offenders if at all possible (and it was possible here) and you do not go into it armed unless you want to run the risk that your weapon will be used. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of killing another human being, then you should take every opportunity to avoid being in a situation where you would be at risk of doing so.

I do neighborhood watch in my area and I am incredibly careful to avoid scenarios where I may be at risk of violence from people behaving suspiciously, and I go unarmed, because I am not willing to deal with the consequences of such interactions. I would only get involved in a situation where there was an absolute and immediate risk to another person. Sketchy looking black dude being in the area is not such a situation, and the absolute most I would have done is call it in.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

Zimmerman's putting words into Martin's mouth when he says Martin made certain statements that are impossible to prove and that Zimmerman has every reason to lie about in order to save his own ass. Zimmerman and spouse have already demonstrated that they have a willingness to lie to benefit themselves, and this whole mess is sketchy enough that, as I said, it absolutely deserved to be investigated and sent to trial.

What I know is this: Zimmerman chose to be armed, he chose to put himself in a situation where he may have a confrontation with Martin, and as a result, he is now facing the consequences of those choices. Note that I am not saying he should be found guilty or innocent, but that it is absolutely the right thing that the killing was investigated and, having passed muster, is being tried.

I go on neighborhood watch myself but I never go armed and I avoid any interaction with suspicious people unless there is an immediate threat to the safety of another person. I accept the possible consequences of my choices and actions, and I am saying that Zimmerman should accept the consequences of his choices and actions. His being on trial now is one of the consequences. It sucks for him if he's innocent, but then, it sucks for Martin and Martin's family that he was killed, and that initially the investigation was not done.

Honestly, this whole thing would have had a lot less traction and been a lot less politicized had there been a FULL investigation done at the time rather than the start stop start that was done which allowed people to (rightly) question whether the cops were letting Zimmerman off without a proper investigation.

Homicides should be investigated and, if it passes grand jury muster, the person who committed the act should be tried. Zimmerman killed another person. The circumstances were such that the case passed grand jury muster. Zimmerman is being tried. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon since posting limit reached. Normally tragedy.

No they don't. Zimmerman's testimony just says that he chased Martin down, lost him, then searched on foot, then Martin approached him. Zimmerman's account doesn't seem to say where he actually came from. The girlfriend's account doesn't seem to materially disagree with me either.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Sumtingwong]

Zimmerman, and yourself, put yourselves in situations where you may have a confrontation with people--this is the reality of a neighborhood watch. He did not break the law by carrying a weapon and had done so previously while on the watch, a point that reinforces his position. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.

This is not a homicide. "Homicide" is a legal term that indicates that another person was illegally killed by another. This has yet to be determined, just as you state.

There was a complete investigation and it was determined that Zimmerman was in accordance with the law. He was only brought in after the press and politicians got ahold of the case. Where are you reading that a full investigation was not completed? I am curious to see your sources.

Any investigation will have one person saying something and that is bounced off the other person, if either chooses to speak. Unfortunately, the victim is deceased. As it stands, much more than words are being put in Zimmerman's mouth by the press that he ever put in Martin's mouth, to include flat out lies, manipulated pictures and creative editing.

If you strive for justice/fairness, defend the inadequacies on both sides, not just one.

Here is another case, just happened: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19859545/2012/10/18/neighbors-altercation-ends-with-one-shot-and-killed

How much traction do you think this will get in the MSM?

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem:

You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun. You do not attempt to apprehend people while on neighborhood watch. You are neighborhood WATCH, not a sworn and trained officer of the law.

Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch that night, he was on a trip to the store when the incident occurred.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

I said in another post that people got political and insane about the case, making it difficult for things to be handled in any really sensible manner. I note you don't seem to say anything negative about Zimmerman's "side" here, yet you seem to feel free to criticize me for what you imagine is a one-sided take.

Homicide means, literally, the killing of a human. That's how I used it, that's how I meant it. I don't care about the legal definition since I'm not a lawyer, and I have carefully avoided saying whether I thought he was guilty or not. If you can't wrap your head around the literal definition of it, fine, I will just use the blunt mechanical term. Zimmerman killed - by his own admission - a human being, and I believe that ANY killing of a human being should be exhaustively investigated and then put before a grand jury to see if an indictment should be handed down. It cannot be left solely to the discretion of the cops or the DA.

The "incomplete" investigation means that the evidence was not gathered by the police and then presented to a grand jury to be determined whether it was sufficient to call it self-defense or merited a trial to look at it further. THAT is what I mean about a "complete" investigation - I know that there is no legal obligation if the cops + DA don't think it would stand up in court, but I think that in the case of killings it should not be up to their discretion because killing is, shall we say, a rather serious thing.

My honest take on this whole thing is that it was fucked from the beginning because the way we handle criminal justice in this country is pretty horribly fucked, and it got political because of just how fucked our criminal justice system is, to the point where people who are members of a group often at the shit end of the stick when dealing with the system have a very legitimate gripe.

Blacks are overwhelmingly convicted of offenses compared to white defendants when factors other than race are accounted for. Blacks receive longer prison sentences than white offenders for very similar crimes. Blacks are vastly more likely to be stopped by police, and more likely to be arrested if stopped. Thus, when a black kid is killed by a white guy and the police drop the investigation extremely quickly, I think it is absolutely sensible for people to question the legitimacy of that investigation.

This does not excuse the media and other groups from trying this case in public and in so doing make it very, very difficult for the process to work without even more prejudice and bias being thrown into the mix, but to pretend like there's nothing fishy about Zimmerman's story is being intentionally obtuse.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

Oh, also: I never once said he broke the law by carrying a weapon while on neighborhood watch. What I did say is that he should have known that there may be consequences - of which this situation is one - of carrying a weapon while on neighborhood watch.

I don't carry a weapon when I go out because I go out of my way to make sure there is as little chance as possible I will need to engage with someone unless, as I said, they are actively in the process of harming another person. I am willing to deal with the consequences of MY choices, and I am aware of what most of those consequences could be. I assume Zimmerman was aware of the possible consequences of his choices, and I don't honestly understand why people seem to have a problem with him facing them now.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem:

You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun.

Sounds like you're try to deny people a constitutional right. Oh well, you will just continue shitting on the Constitution as long as you feel "uncomfortable" about its clauses.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

But the timing of the 911 call transcript from the point where he lost him to the end of the 911 call was well over a minute.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[tehcyder]

A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.

An out of shape heavier man with a fucking gun. I know who had the upper hand in that particular confrontation right from the beginning.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[tehcyder]

I actually am somewhat surprised at the number of people who post here and seem to be pro-gun and simultaneously bothered that Zimmerman is being tried.

Ignoring the race aspects for a moment, it makes perfect sense that people who believe in carrying guns around get a little nervous when someone doing that kills someone and can't pull the old Texas "he was invading my home" defence and automatically walk away. There are consequences to your actions. If you're a poorly trained, psychologically unstable dick trying to compensate for your fear through carrying a deadly weapon, why is it a surprise when things go wrong?

Recently, some Royal Marine Commandos in the UK have been charged with murder (for killing an insurgent in Afghanistan without apparently following the rules of engagement correctly). If professional soldiers can get it wrong, what chance does some amateur have?

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

Had Martin broken into Zimmerman's home and been killed there, I am sure he could have used that defense and I am sure that there would be a lot less to do about the whole case.

But Zimmerman killed Martin in circumstances tha were vastly less clear than a home invasion and key pieces of his claim of self-defense are known only to Zimmerman. Hence the investigation, grand jury indictment, and now trial.

Personally I'm glad that Zimmerman going to trial makes you and other people who carry nervous because it goddamn well should. If you're going to carry and you kill someone in unclear circumstances, then you absolutely should be nervous about the outcome of an investigation and, when warranted, criminal proceedings.

That has been my whole point: there are consequences for your actions. A criminal indictment and trial are consequences that absolutely make sense to happen after you shoot and kill someone under unclear circumstances and then claim self-defense.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[thesandtiger]

One last thing...

Martin was unarmed and being followed by a strange man who did not, according to Zimmerman's statement, identify himself as with the neighborhood watch.

I know that if I were being stalked by someone who seemed suspicious and who refused to identify himself or who he was with I would absolutely be fearful.

According to stand your ground doctrine, wasn't Martin justified in taking steps to defend himself? Especially as it turns out, against an armed man?

Why aren't you celebrating and defending Martin's right to self-defense and instead criticizing Zimmerman for being a fucking idiot and handling this in about the worst way possible?

Martin committed no criminal activity and was not armed, and was being followed by an armed man who refused to identify himself or that he was with the watch - why are you seemingly unable to recognize the validity of Martin's fear and his reaction? Why is only Zimmerman allowed to stand his ground and not Martin? Why are you supportive of Zimmerman's seemingly going out of his way to fuck up at every step that lead to a confrontation?

Answer this for me, please: why don't you feel stand your ground applied to Martin just as much as it applied to Zimmerman?

What's fucked up about this scenario is that both sides really did seem to have misunderstood things. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman was armed when this happened, and "unfortunately" for Zimmerman, when you walk around armed its probably not a good idea to fuck up in such a way that it can escalate to gunplay. Fortunately for society, Zimmerman is dealing with the fallout and hopefully this will give pause to other people who want to follow around someone while armed and refuse to identify themselves or why they're following.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

If the 17 year old were rational- yup.

But from the wounds on the back of zimmerman's head and the way his face was puffed up like a balloon-he got a severe beat down.

An undrawn, unseen gun doesn't stop fights from starting.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

But we cannot ignore the racial aspect. If Martin were white and over 18, there'd be no national story at all; Al Sharpton certainly wouldn't have made a peep about it. If Martin were white and 17 (still a minor), then there's a remote chance that a national story would have emerged along the lines of "child killed in 'stand your ground' encounter", but only briefly before the coverage largely retreated to occasional rotation on Nancy Grace's show and her mini-me Jane Velez-Mitchel's show - unless, of course, the story were completely eclipsed by a pretty white blond female child turning up dead.

Race matters, and we've still got a long way to go to overcome that problem.

- T

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Again Martins grades, tweets, attendance and anything else of that nature were not known to Zimmerman when he chose to leave his car. And against the advice of the authorities chose to confront Martin. That confrontation is the crux of the matter. If anything Martin was "standing his ground" when he defended himself against Zimmerman bizarre behavior. Zimmerman is a murderer and it is as simple as that. He has during the course of this investigation told several versions of what happened that fateful night and will be asked under oath to explain these conflicts in his alibi. Let the truth be known

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the video posted by the police in their reconstruction of the murder scene you will see that there are no bushes to hide in as Zimmerman has claimed. And Zimmerman during his interview with Hanndity on Fox claimed that Martin was "skipping along" as Zimmerman was moving to confront him. There is no evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim of Martin turning to confront Zimmerman's other than his version of events on that night. And Zimmerman has also claimed that Martin "approached his truck" and menaced him. After which Zimmerman decided to leave said truck and confront Martin. All in all the evidence shows that Zimmerman pursued and jumped on Martin and after realizing that he had bitten off more than he could chew pulled his gun and killed Martin. That is murder and Zimmerman will have to answer for his crime

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

What matters is that an unarmed innocent person was killed and that assholes like you want to justify his murder

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't you celebrating and defending Martin's right to self-defense and instead criticizing Zimmerman for being a fucking idiot and handling this in about the worst way possible?

Because the best form of defense is offense is only for the sports field?

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Maxo-Texas]

Agreed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2866084/posts

There is a google map here.

The question is why then did zimmerman talk calmly to 911 on the phone for over a minute after losing Martin? Why didn't zimmerman say, "Oh I see him again to 911?".

Martin couldn't have been in plain sight. Martin had a long time to move the short distance to his house. Yet he didn't.

Since when does asking someone what they are doing in your neighborhood authorize you to beat them?

When after we are five years old is it okay to start hitting someone who isn't touching you?

Is zimmerman suspicious? Yup. Is zimmerman a premeditated murderer? Very hard to believe. Was zimmerman being soundly beaten? It looks like he was.

Perhaps he started something he shouldn't have. But I'd have a hard time convicting him of murder.

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[kaatochacha]

You know, you could behave the same way while carrying a weapon on watch. Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to go waving it about. That way you can behave as you always have, but if something completely unplanned for occurs, you'd have the option of responding to it if need be.
In other words, Control your own actions, don't let some inanimate object control them.
I happen to have guns in my house, and people always say to me something similar: "oh, I can't do that, I'd accidentally shoot someone, if I heard a noise at night, I'd shoot at it , and it would be my husband!". And I think, "Why do you suddenly become an idiot because you have a gun, and then randomly shoot at things?"

Re:Public vs Private and Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

My, my aren't you special. So righteous and convinced of your own precepts.

did you forget who the defendant was?

[Mr_DW]

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.

Re:did you forget who the defendant was?

[ToadProphet]

It also only relates to the rights of the accused while in custody.

Re:did you forget who the defendant was?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you write a letter to the editor confessing how you killed a man in a bar fight and sign your name to it. You can expect a knock on the door from police.

Why do people think that just because its on the internet your safe? Damn people are stupid.

Re:did you forget who the defendant was?

[artor3]

Seems to me that Trayvon is the defendant. The fact that Zimmerman shot him is not in dispute. The case will center entirely around what sort of kid Trayvon was. One side will paint him as a saint, the other as a thug. Either way, there will be at least one Fox News watcher on the jury who will have already made up his mind and vote to acquit, so Zimmerman will walk. (There may be reverse cases, but since the jury needs to be unanimous to lock Zimmerman up, it won't matter.)

The only thing that remains to be determined is how badly the deceased gets smeared first.

This entire case, like so many others, became a farce once the media got involved. If the idiot cops had done their job from day one, there wouldn't be a problem. They could have determined the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman away from the limelight, without letting racial politics get involved.

Re:did you forget who the defendant was?

[Java Pimp]

Making the submitters snide comment even dumber.

wtf?

[JosephTX]

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.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:wtf?

[Zcar]

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.

Re:wtf?

[JosephTX]

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.

Re:wtf?

[Americano]

You aren't going to see the defense showing any tweets like "brb gonna go beat up this neighborhood watch guy"

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.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:wtf?

[Zcar]

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.

Re:wtf?

[tragedy]

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.

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Awful analysis by OP

[webbiedave]

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.

Re:Awful analysis by OP

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't even be allowed for emails.

Re:Awful analysis by OP

[sco08y]

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.

Someone must have a screenshot. That's incontrovertible evidence, right?

Re:Awful analysis by OP

[sco08y]

It shouldn't even be allowed for emails.

Emails can, at least, be digitally signed. If it's done with something like a CAC card, that's far more solid proof that you wrote it than anything paper based, as someone would have to steal the CAC and your PIN.

But most email accounts are routinely compromised, or even shared, just like accounts on Facebook and Twitter. And I'd love to have a service that could log my emails quietly so that if someone does claim I sent something, I can say, "nope, all emails were logged here, it's impossible for me to delete them, and that's not one of them." It wouldn't even have to store original emails, just hashes of them.

Twitteratus

[persevero]

Because Zimmerman was so taking the kid's Tweets into account when he decided to shoot him.

Re:Twitteratus

[Jiro]

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.

Re:Twitteratus

[maxdread]

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.

Re:Twitteratus

[Genda]

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.

Re:Twitteratus

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Twitteratus

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Twitteratus

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Miranda?

[davester666]

WTF! Trayvon is dead. Why would the cops give him a Miranda warning?

Miranda protects the defendant, not the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Miranda protects the defendant, not the victim

[jittles]

You also forget that the Miranda warning is there to tell you that you do not have to speak to the police, and nothing more. Mr Martin or Mr Zimmerman could have either written things on paper, online, or in blood and they can be used in a court of law. It doesn't matter when or where you write your stuff down, if the prosecution or defense find it, and can prove its admissible, it's in. Finally, Miranda Rights do not protect anything you say to the police, at all. The only way you can have something thrown out due to lack of notification of Miranda rights is if you can show that they intended to arrest you, or did arrest you, and asked you to talk without Mirandizing you first. This is why, if you watch videos of police interviews, they almost always ask the person if it is okay to talk to them each and every time an officer comes into the room. However, if the police come by to ask you questions as a witness, or neighbor to a crime, and you say something incriminating during that questioning, you're screwed. That's why there is a YouTube series from an ex-cop, now lawyer talking about why you should never ever talk to the police.

Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Rhetorical question, right?

If not:

Because the "progressive" purveyors of a racial spoils system get to play not just any race card, but an anti-2nd-Amendment race card at that.

Good lord, look at how the 911 tape was altered to paint Zimmerman as a racist.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Genda]

That IS THE POINT! If I have a gun. And I willfully decide to stalk a black kid in a hoody who is 100 lbs lighter than I am, even after the police tell me to leave it alone. I am the one precipitated this event. I am the one who pulled the gun resulting in a needless death. Everything else is moot. I willfully chose to bring this situation to a life of death conflict knowing in advance I carried the power of life and death. Justify the behavior for me please, I want understand your reasoning

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[stewbacca]

If Zimmerman just wanted to shoot Martin, why did he get in to a physical altercation first? Why did he call 911?

Because that's what coward vigilante wannabes do. They call the cops, then bring a gun to a fist-fight (that they instigate), then seek approval from the source of authority they so desperately wish to be part of. Hanging around the police station, joking around, pal-ling around with the cops...all fits the sociopathic behavior.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cute that you're still citing details of the case that were debunked mere days after the incident. If you want to engage in hypotheticals to shore up your position, at least try to make them somewhat less transparently one-sided and misinformed.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised you're surprised.

Slashdot used to be about nerds who valued intelligent, fact-based, rational discussion of current events and tech news.

Now, not so much. No facts required - if the police or anybody else in a position of authority says it? It's wrong! It's a lie! If somebody carrying a gun did it? He's evil, double plus un-good! If Obama says 'this kid looks just like my son would," we all gasp and cry reflexively, because we're just so happy for all "those people" have accomplished, and sad that we have so much more non-racism to prove!

Slashdot is now full of mediocre intellects conditioned to uncritically accept "liberal" dogma, with a side helping of crazy conspiracy theorism. And they're all jerking each other off in an echo chamber.

No, this response doesn't surprise me at all. For other examples of legal cases where Slashdot loses it's collective grasp of reality - see Assange, Julian; Childs, Terry; Reiser, Hans;

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything else is moot?

If Martin attacked Zimmerman first (and we have every reason to believe he did), then Martin initiated the violence.
If Martin was endangering Zimmerman's life according to Zimmerman's own reasonable estimation (and we have every reason to believe he did), then Zimmerman was allowed both legally and morally to defend themselves.
If Zimmerman was shouting for help 20-30 times or so, and Martin was still hitting him (as we have every reason to believe he did), then Zimmerman did everything in his power to prevent this from turning deadly.

But by using loaded phrases like "stalk a kid", instead of e.g. "follow a suspect as part of his neighbourhood watch duties", you are trying to reverse the entire moral content of the story.

The story is as follows; Zimmerman as part of his normal neighborhood watch duties followed a person he deemed suspicious. That person attacked him, and Zimmerman was in legitimate fear of his life, giving him the right to defend said life even his deadly means. The assailant died.

That the "kid" was less heavy than Zimmerman, or that he was wearing a hoodie, *that's* what's utterly moot. That Martin was beating on Zimmerman, even while Zimmerman was crying out for help, that's really REALLY what isn't a moot point at all.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

1- Martin was not 100lbs lighter, more like 10-20 (158 for Martin, 170-185 for Zimmerman depending on the report, I think his DL said 200). Martin was an athletic 17 year old, not that any of that is terribly relevant. Martin was not a 60lb 9 year old girl attacking a linebacker for the Packers.

2- Because someone is following you does not give you the right to attack that person. If you do happen to follow someone down the street in your neighborhood you do not give up all rights to self defense.

3- The police never told him anything. A police dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't "need" to do that (read the transcript). Like you don't "need" to hold the door open for someone. It might have been different if the dispatcher had clearly stated "stop following him and go back to your car" but they didn't.

4- Finally, I want to understand your reasoning how walking down the street even following someone equates to "precipitating" the event, gun or no gun. Assuming Zimmerman's story is true, he was attacked because he was following Martin. Following is not illegal or wrong.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actually claiming that TM, a 17 year-old, football-playing, high school student weighed in at 70 lbs? It's what you said, considering that GZ was, when booked, listed at 170 lbs.

A quick recommendation. If you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, you don't actually need to *demonstrate* it for us.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops are not required to defend life and property.

This has been proven in court case after court case, including Warren v. District of Columbia.

That means if my neighborhood is getting robbed regularly, you better believe I'm going to be out watching.

And if the cops tell me to back off, guess what I tell them?

STFU and either do your job, or I'll do it for you.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

See here's the thing, Zimmerman's defense is an indictment against him.

He got out of the car. He was carrying a gun. He was provoking the situation, and as such, he's responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Which while I wouldn't say are necessarily murder, should be criminal, and if not criminal, he should be liable in a civil action.

Why? Because he's responsible for the death of somebody else, and we should make sure he's held to some standard.

It doesn't matter if Martin attacked Zimmerman, since Martin had the right to defend himself from a perceived threat. Martin didn't choose to create a situation with confrontation, Zimmerman did.

But seriously, you've not noticed the swelling current of pro-Zimmerman supporters?

Huh. Probably a good thing, you're not missing much.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

by every account Zimmerman was an upstanding guy, volunteering for his community, helping others. he looks or behaves nothing like a sociopath.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

He got out of the car.

Perfectly legal for him to do so.

He was carrying a gun.

Perfectly legal - it was properly licensed, registered, etc., unless you've heard something that would contradict that?

He was provoking the situation

What situation? He claims he was trying to ascertain which direction Martin had headed, so he could tell the police what direction he went when they arrived. He claims that Martin accosted him, and then assaulted him with such violence that he had a real fear for his own life and safety.

He's responsible for the consequences of his actions, it's true. But his actions were perfectly legal, and perfectly justifiable, insofar as he has described them, and insofar as we know the relevant laws. So... why should he be legally punished, if he's found to have behaved in a perfectly legal manner? NOTHING he claims he did that night was illegal. So why punish him?

It doesn't matter if Martin attacked Zimmerman,

You couldn't be more wrong. Just about the only thing that DOES matter is whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman. The person who initiated contact - regardless of provocation, intent, or anything else - is in the wrong. You don't have the right to claim self defense because "some guy was following me." You have the right to call the police, and ask them to intervene. You have the right to turn around and talk to the guy, and say, "What's your problem, bro? Leave me alone, man, or I'll call the cops." But you do not have the right to initiate physical force against that person. As soon as you do, you have ceded all pretense of legality, as you are now guilty of assault.

If Zimmerman ran at him waving a pistol and screaming "die nigger die", then Martin could claim to have been responding in self-defense to a real or perceived threat to his life. And if there's evidence to suggest that happened, then Zimmerman should absolutely be found guilty and sent away. But unless you're aware of some sort of amazing evidence which nobody else has seen, you're talking out your ass and simply assuming Zimmerman is guilty because: 1) he was carrying a gun, and guns are bad, hmmkay? and 2) Martin was darker brown, and therefore anything bad happening to him must be racism.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the exact type of backward thinking that makes "stand your ground" laws necessary. You say Zimmerman created the situation even if Martin attacked him? So, simply paroling your own neighborhood and reporting suspicious activities to the police is grounds for being beaten into the ground by your account. Zimmerman started it.

So my question is, if Zimmerman had not been armed and Martin successfully beat him to death, or perhaps just severely injured him, would it still be Zimmerman's fault? Here are the two illogical conclusions based on your premise.

1. Even if unarmed, it's still Zimmerman's fault. He deserved to be attacked and beaten for the crime of walking down the street in his own neighborhood following a suspicious person and calling the police. The right thing to do when you see s suspicious person is to go home and suck your thumb.

2. If Zimmerman was unarmed and beaten to death, then it wouldn't be his fault. The only thing that made it his fault is that he had a gun to prevent himself from being beaten to death.

So, by this logic, anyone who actually is prepared to defend themselves is automatically in the wrong. The only way to be in the right is to run away, or be beaten and/or killed. You are why "stand your ground" laws exist.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, and I was planning on charging him for getting out of his car! No wait, I think you missed the point of what I said by breaking it up into individual segments, you find yourself able to ignore the whole while nitpicking over nothing.

Then again, you're asking "What situation" it was when it should be pretty obvious. The one that got Trayvon Martin killed by George Zimmerman's gun. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Which Zimmerman caused, by getting out of his car, carrying his gun, that's why it doesn't matter if Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman created the situation. None of this is in dispute or doubt. Certainly not by Zimmerman.

That lead to a death. A wrongful one. Who is responsible for it? Zimmerman, who chose all of the actions to start the confrontation. Whereas Martin was only choosing to walk home. Who did wrong? Zimmerman.

And we punish him because that's how we deal with people who do wrong. This was a case of him doing wrong. If Martin weren't dead, then depending on the results, maybe I'd still say Zimmerman should be charged because, again, he created the confrontation. Whatever Martin did was in response to that, though if you're going to complain about me talking out of my ass, then maybe you shouldn't talk out of your ass with your speculations.

I don't care though. Zimmerman got out of the car. That is a known fact. Trayvon Martin died as a result of what followed from that. Whatever excuses or justifications will not change that, and the results of his actions were not justifiable, and if there is no way in the laws to remedy that, then the laws are broken. Which is pretty normal for Florida, but still, we don't have to say that they're right, if anything, sometimes we need to say the laws are wrong.

Do go on trying to play that reverse race card though. That's hilarious.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, and I was planning on charging him for getting out of his car!

That's pretty much what you've said, yes. You know, when you went on to say:

I don't care though. Zimmerman got out of the car. That is a known fact. Trayvon Martin died as a result of what followed from that.

Somehow you think it's possible for somebody behaving completely legally to be "responsible" for a situation where somebody else is injured or killed. Sorry, but that flies in the face of what the law says. Zimmerman was well within his legal rights to get out of the car, and carry that gun. You can argue all you want that, "if he didn't have the gun, he couldn't have shot Martin!" ignores the fact that carrying the gun was legal, and if ZImmerman acted in self defense as he claims, then so was his killing of Martin.

That lead to a death. A wrongful one.

It is not a wrongful death if Zimmerman is found to be acting in self defense, you beef-curtained, moose-knuckled, cum-addled fuckstain. Why is it so hard for you to hold these two separate ideas in your head? Zimmerman is charged. That does not mean he is guilty. In fact, under our system, he is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All of these assumptions and wild-ass assertions you're making disregard the facts of the situation (specifically, what the actual laws actually say about his legal obligations vis a vis self defense), and assume a multitude of facts that are not in evidence (specifically, that Martin had no choice but to assault a guy because somehow "a guy following me around" is life-threatening, but "a kid running up, punching me in the head, and slamming my head into the sidewalk" could never be).

You're a hoot. Never change.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, you're trying to nitpick your way out of it. Keep doing that, it shows how you willfully fail to grasp what a person is saying. Much as people tend to do when they quote people segment by segment instead of replying with their own words as a whole. Especially when they only quote parts of the sentences, but leave out the really important ones.

It's really poor style you know.

But anyway, nothing you said contradicts what Zimmerman did. And admitted to doing.

Was getting out of his car a crime? Of course not, but it was the act which lead to a wrongful death. None of your insults will persuade me otherwise. All they do is say something about your character.

And no, in these circumstances, Zimmerman doesn't get to rely on the presumption of innocence, as there is no doubt whatsoever that he shot somebody. None. If he tried to pretend he wasn't there or the shooter, he'd be even worse trouble. Thus he has to avail himself of an affirmative defense.

Which is voided in this case, as I've said already by his choice to get out of his car. After that, he lost the claim to defending himself and became a provocateur.

But go ahead, make wild rants and petty insults, pretend to fail to grasp what I'm saying and make assumptions about me while deriding the ones you claim I'm making.

Nothing will change the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car, carrying a gun, and he killed somebody. He's admitted to it. He's committed a crime, and as such should be punished.

That you're even going for the "innocent until proven guilty" line doesn't do well for your position either though, as it shows a fundamental misapprehension of the situation. But maybe you're just relying on what you think are truisms in the law, and are just widely ignorant.

Whatever it is, you're pretty much destroying any capability you might have had to persuade me otherwise. Next time, try to change how you conduct yourself.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

One last time: IT IS NOT A WRONGFUL DEATH UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS PROVEN GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER IN A COURT OF LAW. If the action is held to be self defense, then IT IS NOT A WRONGFUL DEATH. If he is not found guilty, then he has done NOTHING WRONG and so any suggestion that he should have some "legal obligation" for a "legal action" he took is patently false, and is simply you trying to advance your idiotic anti-gun patronizingly racist agenday.

Maybe it'll sink in if it's all in capital letters, you shitwit.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

And to me, it's your kind of backwards defensive thinking that makes me repudiate all of these "stand your ground" laws as excuses for wannabe vigilantes to pretend to fight crime. I find your excuses to be repellent and revolting, and your representations to be typically distorting.

Zimmerman wasn't patrolling his neighborhood in a general sense, he was specifically following after somebody. He chose to do that by getting out of his car, and then presented himself as a threat to another person. How was he presenting himself as a threat? Well, for one thing, he had no way to establish genuine respectable authority. Do you know why police officers, even security guards, wear uniforms? So people can recognize them. Zimmerman had none of that, and so he was just one person confronting another. The other person was just somebody going about their business.

That's why Zimmerman should have left it up to the police. But no, he chose to get out of his car. Calling the police? Acceptable enough, though there are certain cases where it becomes excessive. That's a problem for another day though, so let's stick to what's important here. Which in this case was getting out of the car, as that set the confrontation in place and created a threat to Trayvon Martin and lead to Martin's death. Do you believe Zimmerman had the right to create a threat to another? I don't, and I find it hypocritical for you to claim that Zimmerman can claim defense with lethal force, but you use Martin's own defense to indict Martin.

Martin was the one threatened by a strange man. Would a better reaction be desirable? Sure, other than the racist nutters, nobody wanted him to die. But was Martin's response here criminal? Well, if so, then Zimmerman is still responsible since he created it by getting out of the car. If you must, you can punish them both. Oh wait, you can't, because Martin's dead. That's a bit excessive even for Florida.

As for what I believe in a legal sense, I certainly believe if you admit killing somebody, you are the one responsible for defending your conduct, you are not presumed innocent, and you should not be presumed the right to stand your ground. I believe you need to prove to people that your conduct was reasonable, and I believe those precious "stand your ground" laws at best trade one potential injustice for another. At worst...they are a reaction to an imagined injustice that creates a guaranteed one.

If you believe otherwise, that an affirmative defense is not required, that one can just baldly assert one's conduct is justified, and that it has to be disproven, then I would say we have a fundamental disconnect in how we believe people should behave or be held accountable.

Which is hardly surprising, but at least my way doesn't lead to vigilantes taking over the streets.

And yes, I would expect Martin to have made an affirmative defense had he killed Zimmerman. The difference? Martin would be able to claim he was going about his business when a strange man confronted him and he became afraid for his life. Perhaps he wouldn't be persuasive, but we'll never know, will we?

Zimmerman can't make that defense. He could have stayed in his car, he could have gone about his business.

He chose otherwise. And then he killed somebody.

Pardon me for holding people accountable when somebody gets killed. I don't know how I live with myself, valuing human life and expecting people to be responsible for taking it.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Maxo-Texas]

Couple points.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/03/trayvon-martin-shooting-death-initial-police-reports.html

Travon is 6' and 158-160 pounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Zimmerman's height is shown as 5â8â and his weight as 185 pounds

185-158 = 27 pounds and 4" shorter. And out of shape.

Travion martin was an athlete, fit and Zimmerman was pudgy and in bad shape.

And the stalking included talking on the phone to 911, standing still. Read the transcript. Zimmerman stopped immediately when 911 told him to stop. He didn't move again while on the phone. Travon had plenty of time to cover the 300' to his house unless he was hiding very close to Zimmerman.

It is not okay or legal to start punching someone for following you and asking you questions.

If you are on your back and afraid someone is beating you to death, and you shoot them, it's self defense.

We'll know more facts when the trial happens.
It's tragic.

Before you start in with the 100lbs lighter, do a little research.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

It only matters who started the actual physical attack. According to the law, you can't say Zimmerman is guilty simply for following the kid. However, if Zimmerman started the assault by actually touching Martin in some manner, then his guilt would be almost certain. Now, if Martin is the one who started the assault by touching Zimmerman first (even after being following/harassed by Zimmerman), then according to Florida law, Zimmerman was acting lawfully. Also, the 911 operator is not a police officer and no one is under legal obligation to follow their "commands". You say Zimmerman knew he "carried the power of life and death", and I assume you say this because he had a firearm. Simple fist fights can result in death, so almost any person carries with them "the power of life and death", so that point is silly.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

But Zimmerman has done wrong. He's killed somebody. There is no doubt whatsoever of that. He's admitted to it. That's why he would need to stand up in a court of law and defend himself. His obligation is affirmative, he doesn't need to be proven guilty, he needs to convince the rest of us that his actions were justifiable. Any law that would force the rest of us to take him at his word would be seriously flawed, as we deserve the chance to make him persuade us. But he can't claim he didn't provoke the situation, because he chose to get out of his car. He chose to pursue somebody. That set up the confrontation that lead to a death. Thus his actions created a crime for which he is responsible.

The more emphasis people put on claiming that "he has done NOTHING WRONG" the less I wonder about people who can't even say it was a tragedy. I can give some consideration to people who claim to try for temperance even though I do doubt their honesty, but people who go to your lengths of excusing him are violating their own putative standards. Shouldn't you at least try for some temperance in your words? Couldn't it be possible that it was wrong even if it wasn't criminal? Apparently not.

Sorry, but you've discredited yourself. More likely your standards are flawed, patently false, and you are simply trying to advance your idiotic pro-violence racist bigotry with a disguise of virtue.

Really shameful of you. Have you no integrity?

Oh wait, no, you'd rather name-call and yell as if that would be an effective means to persuade.

Well, no, it has the opposite effect. Thanks for the vindication.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how you bought into the main stream media story that Trayvon was a 12 year old little kid that weighed 90lbs. I feel sorry for you.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many flaws in your logic and philosophy, but the main one is that you presume Zimmerman presented himself as a threat, which is not established. While there is speculation that Zimmerman somehow confronted Martin. Maybe ran up to him and yelled "Hey you, stop" I have read no witness account to that effect.

So, we are back to Zimmerman walking down the street. Walking down the street is legal. Following someone in a public place is legal (yea if you do it repeatedly it may rate harassment).

Following someone down the street does not constitute a threat which justifies self defense. You say Martin was threatened by a strange man. Where did you get that evidence from? Martin might have tried to use the affirmative defense if he was arrested for beating Zimmerman to death. He would then need to show that Zimmerman assaulted him in some way. If he just said "This guy got out of his car and was following me" it wouldn't work. Of course it would be ultimately up to a jury, but I wouldn't bet my freedom on the "he was following me" defense.

Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, he could have stayed home, he could have gone to the movies, he could have taken a shower. All that is irrelevant. What he was doing was perfectly legal. Getting out of the car is not "presenting a threat."

For you, Zimmerman getting out of the car "with a gun" automatically made him wrong. Again, you are why we have stand your ground laws.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[stewbacca]

Um, no. You need to research harder. And his post arrest behavior has been even less upstanding.

Re:Slashdot seems to lean toward Martin's case

[kaatochacha]

Wow!
"That's why he would need to stand up in a court of law and defend himself. His obligation is affirmative, he doesn't need to be proven guilty, he needs to convince the rest of us that his actions were justifiable"

you just pulled a "guilty until proven innocent" out of your ass.
I congratulate you sir!

archived

[101percent]

All public tweets are archived in the Library of Congress, so why not...

Re:archived

[DigiShaman]

You want to fill the LoC with yet more useless crap. At that point, LoC as a metric would have to be measured in fractions!

On a side note ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been no new burglaries in the gated community since Mr. Martins death.

Did Travyon play CoD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or other FPSs? Because if he did I sure hope for justice's sake he didn't tweet about it.

Nothing new under the sun.

[westlake]

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.

Re:Nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Came in to say exactly this. Manufactured outrage is manufactured.

"Anything you Tweet can be held against you"

[John Hasler]

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.

Miranda = Obsolete

[Penurious Penguin]

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.

Question about deleted tweets...

[SnowHog]

Are user-deleted tweets retained for a period of time on Twitter's severs? Perhaps indefinitely?

Re:Question about deleted tweets...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter, they're archived by the Library of Congress.

Once you tweet, it will NEVER go away.

Slashdot Law Class

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Nothing new here.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Legal comments

[Excel_Spread_Sheep]

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!

But Zommerman knew nothing of the tweets

[MichaelSmith]

So I fail to see how they are relevant to the situation where he killed this kid.

Re:But Zommerman knew nothing of the tweets

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecution contends Zimmerman shot Martin, who was of no immediate threat to him.
Zimmerman says he believes Martin was an immediate threat to him because of his behaviour at the time, submits evidence of a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.
Prosecution contends Martin was an innocent angel. His mum said so.
Zimmerman produces evidence supporting the contention that Martin had a propensity to violence.

This legal analysis has been brought to you by years of watching Law and Order.

Seems obvious to me

[Guru80]

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.

Re:Seems obvious to me

[Guru80]

And so much for formatting....it worked in preview, no clue what happened there.

Re:Seems obvious to me

[Guru80]

I should clarify another point real quick. I meant tried, not prosecuted in the above so all the facts are heard and not just the wild media speculation. If you knew nothing about it and only heard news reports you would assume Zimmerman approached him and shot him when he was looked at funny or something else absurd.

History of violence from wteet and facebook = bull

[aepervius]

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.

What is this Miranda garbage??

[Andy Prough]

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.

A bunch of terrible racist comments

[Anonymous Coward]

from white computer nerds? Color me surprised.

Two Points

[Stirling Newberry]

(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

Public data

[nurb432]

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.

Re:Public data

[tjonnyc999]

Mod parent up!

character assasination

[nurb432]

its not an assasination if its all true and the kid was scum.

Re: character assasination

[e3m4n]

_character_ assassination: thats a phrase used in politics and legal strategy to undermine the credibility of ones perceived status in society. By painting him as scum they have assassinated the previous held up notion of a pious, honor roll student, slain at the hands of 'some racist white dude'.

similar strategies are used in all sorts of cases, sometimes good sometimes bad. For example the World Bank president accused of raping the maid. Her character was assassinated when they brought forth recorded evidence of her communicating with an inmate discussing how much money she intended to extort from him. It was further assassinated when the rest of her details she gave the cops started unraveling.

Re: character assasination

[nurb432]

You missed my point. the kid was scum, and had no 'good image' to protect as everyone knew the truth.

Good riddens if you ask me. One less hoodlum.

Re: character assasination

[evil_aaronm]

Right, because kids can't be dipshits when they're kids, but then, when they mature a little, become productive citizens? That never happens, right?

Re: character assasination

[nurb432]

Not when you are as much trash as this kid was. There is a difference between being a bit over the top as a pest kid and a hoodlum. He was not one of those that would 'get a clue and straighten out' as he matured, his future was as a gang member. Eradicating him was the best thing that could have happened to that area.

Re: character assasination

[erroneus]

This kid was pretty much on the path to prison. Sure, there was always "hope" but there's a long list of people in prison who also had hope.

I want every young man to clean up and straighten out, but it's just not going to happen. It'd be amazing for society, but the trends and statistics do not support the desire. If you were to dig into crime and behavior statistics, you would find some overwhelmingly damning data which clashes with our society's idealistic and hopeful image of things.

But I'll just leave you with this:

Humans are animals. And the chemical and biological content of each human determines thought and behavior. You can go into spiritual ideas all you like, but at the end of the day, we ALL understand that chemical and biochemical influences on the human body occur and lead to all manner of behaviors, both good and bad and everything in between. (Think postpardum depression, manic depression, alcoholism, PMS and more) We know this about ourselves.

We also know dogs are animals... capable of learning and training. Yet beyond that, we will trust our children around a collie more than a pit bull. Why? Because we know about the different breeds and the behaviors of those breeds.

Why is it so hard to face up to certain facts about human breeds?

Re: character assasination

[BalthCat]

Well I know what'd be the best thing that could happen to this thread!

Re: character assasination

[Maxo-Texas]

I haven't seen anything putting Martin on a path to prision.

At worst, I see a hot headed action by a 17 year old.

Do you have some kind of linkable evidence to support a claim he was prison bound?

Re: character assasination

[erroneus]

Associations with drugs and violence and burglury are all well established in Martin's history. The pictures associated with NO_LIMIT_NIGGA which was initially denied as being Martin's turned out to be Martin's after all.

The kid was a picture perfect... no, Hollywood perfect model of a thug in training. That he was a minor protected him from most of justice system, but as trends go, he was a perfect candidate for entry into the system. I mean really. Did you look at this guy and the doctoring of the photos they did of him?

http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see

The people promoting his innocense are simply and utterly shameless. They KNOW what they are doing. To edit the photo of him in a hoodie to make him look like a child wasn't just "enhancing" the image. They doctored it to create a false appearance and false impression. Can you offer a plausible and reasonable explanation to the contrary?

His twitter account is truly damning of his image. Truly damning... even from the name of it. Based on the circumstancial evidence of his character, it's just bad. The rest of his character references? Well... let's see how it all goes, but so far, it's not looking good. His "friends" wasted no time in confirming that the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA twitter account was his as were all the thug pictures associated with it.

Looks like a thug. Acts like a thug. Thinks like a thug. Behaves like a thug. Would it really be racist or prejudiced of me to think he was a thug?

Miranda?

[DL117]

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.

Update Miranda if you want to be obvious..

[TheLevelHeadedOne]

'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"...

A film before its time with Internet activity

[stimpleton]

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.

Not a defendant.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

" '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.

Trayvon could have called the cops

[voss]

Zimmerman could have been charged with harassment and or stalking

Re:Trayvon could have called the cops

[redmid17]

Look up the definitions of harassment or stalking in Florida. You'd be wrong

Deadly force should never be used, even...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense"

Enjoy extinction. I agree, dumbest shit I've ever read on Slashdot.

Facebook == Truthiness

[Sebastopol]

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.

The drunk guy project

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

an operator with no authority whatsoever

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I've met a 911 operator. These people are not cops. They are just fairly-normal phone answering people.

Re:History of violence from wteet and facebook = b

[Anonymous Coward]

actually ... we see that those who commit heinous acts of violence are often cowards who sound big in their writings.

Panthers needed, ex-Panther president is traitor!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Get the facts

[fuzznutz]

It is almost invariable that those with a strong bias will twist facts to suit their own personal biases. You have taken indisputable facts which were electronically recorded at the time of the incident and altered them to suit your viewpoint. If this is how you treat reliable facts, are you credible to make judgments on the facts in real dispute???

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]

Re: Why not in the Martin case?

[girlinatrainingbra]

The little details I remember noticing that aren't mentioned that often again are:

.

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.

The physical evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

says you're wrong. Martin was the attacker. And more than likely his digital comments will indicate a proclivity to such.

Re:The physical evidence

[tragedy]

No, the physical evidence might say that Zimmerman and Martin fought. It says nothing about who the attacker is. Also, even if Martin did attack, it doesn't make him "a bad kid trying to assault someone". Based even on Zimmerman's account, it more likely makes him a scared kid in a standard fight or flight response who had decided that flight had failed.

Re: Why not in the Martin case?

[redmid17]

Talk to your shrink about your crippling case of delusional paranoia

Goes to show

[Anonymous Coward]

how strongly people need/want to believe that violent "white" people with guns are the problem with America.

Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is a straw man argument. It was a homicide, but there are lots of different flavors of those, including "justified". Not sure how you characterize the incident as "Zimmerman took a gun and started a conflict"

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.

Have you read any of the "stand your ground" statutes? All stand your ground laws say is that you do not have a duty to retreat from a location which you lawfully occupy before defending yourself. "Stand your ground" laws really shouldn't be required, but due to some whacky court cases where people didn't retreat "far enough". Some decent prosecutorial and judicial discretion could have solved the problem, but common sense from the legal community is a rare commodity.

If the account by Zimmerman is accurate, "stand your ground" is completely irrelevant. In this case, he had no opportunity to retreat once the altercation started, and no obligation to retreat from the street where he was lawfully walking.

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.

Or he was an crotchety old man. You know there are lots of those. I have a dad who is one. He'll start an argument with anyone at any time. He doesn't have a gun.

Oh, did you hear about the 12 year old who shot the home invader in Oklahoma last week? Yea, that's what I call responsible gun ownership. Of course in many states the cops would have come and arrested the parents for the kid getting the gun.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[shutdown -p now]

I am a gun owner, and I do see a problem with that situation. Even if Zimmerman is legally off the hook, he showed very, very poor judgment stalking someone with a gun in his hand (and I wouldn't be surprised that this stalking is what caused Trayvon to behave erratically, too, especially if the gun was brandished before the altercation). A law that would punish such behavior would be nice, too, though I don't know quite how you'd formulate it.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[misexistentialist]

A big part of that was his status in the Neighborhood Watch. Though neighbors should be free to associate, setting up an government-sanctioned amateur domestic spy organization will produce some negative consequences.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[misexistentialist]

What if you, person who doesn't own a gun, were in Zimmerman's place and were curb-stomped to death by a punk because he didn't like the way you looked at him? What if the old guy just shot you in the head and walked away, never to be identified? What if a cop sees you carrying a cellphone and shoots you 15 times for a paid vacation? Government can't do anything other than make you more vulnerable.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[e3m4n]

how do you know zimmerman took a gun and started a conflict??? According to the only non-bullshit media that bothered to actually fairly investigate, Rueters, the cops told zimmerman to buy and carry a gun about a year before the incident. He and his wife were jogging and were attacked by a unleashed pitt bull. There were several unleashed dogs in the neighborhood due to the housing collapse causing a lot of forclosures and abandonment. So no, he did not just grab a gun and go decide to play cop like the media wants you to think. Rueters did a complete 10yr history on zimmermans life, and interviewed the cops that responded to the dog attack.

The witness statement made via video (I watched the video) that occurred the very next day states that during the fist fight, Trayvon had nearly won the fight already when Trayvon spotted and reached for the gun in zimmermans waistband.

We do know it was zimmerman's voice that was screaming for help, and an eye witness that called 911 did say that Trayvon was beating zimmerman's head into the pavement before being shot. So where in the world do you see a 'do nothing situation'? Do you think that Trayvon would have somehow NOT killed zimmerman while beating his skull into pavement? You cant possibly know that. Trayvon didnt 'lunge at him' .. how about ALL the evidence of being beat half to hell during the conflict? Dont you understand that even a single punch can actually kill? Happened here a year ago, at an festival where people were drinking. Some guy accidentally bumped into another guy and that guy got pissed and punched him hard in the back of the head. Guy died instantly. Guns arent the only way to kill people, despite what all the anti-gun nuts want people to believe. Humans have been doing a good job of it for the last 20k years, long before the first gun was invented. So if your head was being pounded into the pavement, and you felt you were going to die.. would you pull that gun a cop told you to carry to protect you from pitt bulls? Even casting the 'trayvon reached for the gun first saying he was going to kill george' statement aside; Any series of blows to the skull become life threatening and justify immediate deadly response.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[e3m4n]

again, media madeup bullshit.. read the Rueters account, it goes into a 10yr history and interviews neighbors etc. Its called investigative journalism that our current media doesnt believe in. They believe in printing opinions and not collecting information.

George carried a gun, in his waitband not his hand, because cops told him to after being attacked by a pitt bull the year prior. There were lots of unleashed dogs attacking people after being abandoned during the forclosures from the housing collapse.

zimmerman's statement to the cops after the incident on video stated that it was a purely physical altercation, one which trayvon was clearly winning, that resulted in george's head being bashed into the sidewalk multiple times (confirmed by witness who ran to call 911 and georges voice confirmed in background screaming for help). The statement continues to say that trayvon then saw the gun in the waistband , reached for it, and said 'your going to die tonight mother fucker!'. We dont know how much of that is true.. but we do know

1) george did NOT approach with gun in hand otherwise trayvon would have NEVER had a chance to beat his skull into the sidewalk repeatedly as witnessed by a neighbor.
2) the physical attack and having your head pounded into the sidewalk is justifiable defense even if the part about reaching for the guy by travon was completely made-up.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is that we know all this mostly from Zimmerman's own account, and he has all reasons in the world to mislead. There may be other witnesses and other evidence, but I'd rather wait until the court untangles that.

Also, regardless of anything else, my point about him showing poor judgment still stands: he still stalked Trayvon after calling 911. Very, very stupid thing to do. The guy was clearly fantasizing of playing a cop.

Re:Here's my problem w/ the gun crowd

[tehcyder]

HOWEVER it went down, Zimmerman escalated a nothing-doing situation to a murder.

Exactly. Even if he had caught an unarmed Martin breaking and entering he still wouldn't have been justified in killing him. As it was, the kid appears to have been guilty mainly of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The punk felt lucky. ~shrug~

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Hard to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hard to say?

[khallow]

Yes, the man getting his head slammed into the concrete repeatedly was clearly at fault. To answer your question, which of these actions you mention is considered sufficient provocation to warrant an assault that could have killed Zimmerman? To the contrary, you can claim self-defense even in such a case. Else you're claiming that one can have an even broader category of legal actions than the existing Florida law for killing someone.

In other words, if someone gets in my personal space while carrying a gun on their person, then they're fair game, right?

Re:Hard to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!. If you, without provocation, come after me with a gun - you are fair game.

Re:Hard to say?

[khallow]

By your phrase, "come after me with a gun", does the gun have to be out and brandished? Or in a holster with the person merely an uncomfortable distance away from you?

Re:Hard to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think my phrase is clear. As others have pointed out dead men tell no tells. Two things are certain, they both would be alive if GZ had not confronted TM and it was self defence. What is in doubt is who initiated physical contact and who therefore was defending himself.
I am unaware of any reported witness who saw GZ exit his car and confront TM. Was he carrying his gun in his belt or in his hand? My phrase suggests that it may have been the latter. The responsibility for TM's death is entirely GZ's.

Re: "uncomfortable distance away" - exactly. How far is far enough or too close given the circumstances? Back in the car would have been a safer bet.

Re:Hard to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically what you are saying that the fact that Martin is disqualified from standing his ground because he was unarmed and had to resort to hand-to-hand combat instead of just shooting Zimmerman?

Re:Hard to say?

[Cederic]

which of these actions you mention is considered sufficient provocation to warrant an assault that could have killed Zimmerman?

Do you know for certain that head slamming took place?
Do you know what caused any head slamming that did take place?

The only thing that's certain right now is that Zimmerman caused the incident to happen. He initiated it. He used excessive force - shooting an unarmed man is pretty fucking excessive.

Re:Hard to say?

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure that following someone or that being followed by someone is just cause for using for hand to hand combat of shooting someone. If someone resorts to that, it would seem to me that they were trying to intentionally harm someone or teach them a lesson.

I have little sympathy for either.

Re:Hard to say?

[TFAFalcon]

It completely depends on your behavior. If you act like you are likely to harm me, then keeping the gun holstered does not make it any less threatening. And if you then reach for it, or a phone near it, I'm going to interpret that as you trying to kill me.

Re:Hard to say?

[khallow]

Do you know for certain that head slamming took place?

Zimmerman had injuries on the back of his head consistent with that particular story.

Do you know what caused any head slamming that did take place?

Obviously not. But this is an innocent until proven guilty situation. And there's probably a lot of evidence that will confirm or not Zimmerman's story. If he and Martin were grappling at the time of the shooting, then both will bear evidence of that and gunpowder residue. If Zimmerman's head was bashed into a sidewalk, then that will probably be evidence as well including where that happened.

If Zimmerman has ever boasted publicly about how he confronts burglars with gun drawn or other actions or behavior that would undermine his defense, that will probably come out as well.

My view is that if this was a simple case of Zimmerman gunning down a defenseless man without any sort of excuse, it wouldn't have taken as long as it did for him to be tried.

The only thing that's certain right now is that Zimmerman caused the incident to happen. He initiated it. He used excessive force - shooting an unarmed man is pretty fucking excessive.

He wouldn't have initiated those head injuries by killing Martin first. So there's something wrong with your story right there. And if you have a reasonable expectation of grievous injury or death, then shooting an unarmed man who caused that expectation is not excessive force.

Re:Hard to say?

[HornWumpus]

If GZ had the gun in his hands TM would have never hit him.

TM did hit GZ. Therefore GZ was not brandishing the weapon. The only other option is to assume TM was a moron.

To wit

[Anonymous Coward]

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

BULLSHIT 9-11 call was out long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:BULLSHIT 9-11 call was out long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about - Slashdot readers used to understand that "data" and "anecdotes" are not equivalent. It's all about parroting the latest (false) bullshit that they think they heard, and are absolutely sure MUST be completely true, because DKos reported it - never mind if it was *true,* it was *reported.* On a *BLOG*. And I think we all know that blogs are pretty reliable.

Thanks for providing us with an example of what I was referring to, ace.

Slashdot = 4chan + pretense of intelligence.

cowards always fear for their life

[bussdriver]

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?

Re:zimmerman is not innocent

[__aaltlg1547]

And WHO STARTED THIS FIGHT?

Sober Up

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bad Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What if Tray had stalked and shot Zimmerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

"his second-degree murder case" what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Boycott them all

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Uh, the Miranda warning protects defendants ...

[therealkevinkretz]

... not witnesses or victims.

Manufacturing Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stupid

[nessman]

"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.

George Zimmerman's criminal past?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

The only relevent thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Uh, wait just a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This has nothing to do with the Miranda warning

[cpaglee]

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?

utter madness

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ".

Re:History of violence from wteet and facebook = b

[tjonnyc999]

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?