If Martin had killed Zimmerman, there'd only be Martin's side of the story, and he could easily claim that Zimmerman threatened him first. It wouldn't matter if there were witnesses who saw him on top of Zimmerman, slamming his head into the concrete.
See, it cuts both ways.
Unless, of course, the law treats black people and sons of judges differently.
None of those three points are criminal, but they should weigh in when determining if Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death. Well, I don't know about Florida law, but where I live, they'd likely be weighed in.
Following someone is neither provocation or a direct threat to ones safety, it is suspicious, nothing more. Neither side is in the wrong so long as neither is trespassing. Whoever strikes the first blow is the aggressor.
Not if there are other reasons for either party to feel threatened. It's easy to see how Martin could believe his life was in danger if Zimmerman, for example, pulled out his gun, or was acting aggressively, and be justified in striking the first blow.
Given the dead body, Zimmerman's own story, and conflicting eye witnesses, I think it'd be a very good idea to bring the case to trial so a jury can decide. If nothing else, it will put the facts on the table and disspell any suspicions of corruption.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
That's all people are asking for. A fair trial. But so far, the DA has shown little interest in investigating and prosecuting a possible homicide.
Because the whites declared equality was achieved, and the minorities know that to be a lie. The whites are causing the race war by defending the racists like Zimmerman who killed the boy because he was Black.
Or, possibly, it's a class thing. The people who have money and connections know how to (ab)use the system and look out for each other, and it just happens that there are whites than blacks among them.
In this case, the white guy who is excused for killing someone also happens to be the son of a judge.
You can't just walk up to anyone with a gun and expect them to treat you like a cop. To them, you're the potential criminal, and they're only defending themselves.
Except Zimmerman hadn't actually threatened him. SYG only applies to the threat or use of actual force. Stalking does not qualify.
Obviously, we only have Zimmerman's version of the story, since Martin is dead. But when you find someone with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, you don't take their story at face value. You ask yourself questions like, "Why would Martin attack someone without reason, when he hadn't done anything wrong?" and "Why did Zimmerman go out of his way to find reasons to follow the boy?"
None of this proves Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but it's more than enough reason to investigate and prosecute a possible homicide.
No, nothing is definitive yet, but almost all the facts so far look bad for Zimmerman. It's rather odd that the DA is showing so little interest in investigating a possible homicide.
It's not what we know, it's what Zimmerman knew and could bet his life on. That's the standard that the police used, and this is a perfect example of why many people don't grok the decision police and prosecutors routinely make.
What about Martin's fears? If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
I think your reasoning only shows how differently the standards are applied to different people.
I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done.
It's different when you have a dead body. Possible manslaughter or murder has a high priority, even if a conviction is uncertain.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
So it's perfectly OK for a black man to confront a white man who walks around "suspiciously" in his neighbourhood, shoot him, and then claim the white man attacked him first (for no apparent reason)? And people would immediately leap to the black man's defence, just as you do with Zimmerman?
I'm sorry Zimmerman isn't psychic and able to predict whether someone will commit a crime, or assault him.
And I'm sorry Martin is dead, for doing nothing else than walking in the rain wearing a hood and looking around "suspiciously". Regardless of who dealt the first physical blow, Zimmerman was the one who cornered Martin and provoked the fight. For no good reason.
He names himself by the nickname nigga, that suggests to me a person with an attitude problem. They are not unknown to try to start a fight knowing that the moment things go wrong, the other person will back down since no-one wants to take things to far. This is a dog who barked at a cyclist hoping to scare him off. This cyclist stood his ground.
Never mind that Zimmerman was the one whose history shows he had a beef with black people. Never mind that he went out of his way to find reasons to pursue Martin, while Martin was just out to buy junk food, and had no reason to start a fight. Since Martin called himself "Nigga", of course he must be the aggressor.
I'm appalled at the lengths people will go to to excuse Zimmerman's actions. If someone other than the rich son of a judge had acted the same way, nobody would leap to his defence.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime.
And neither had Martin. Going out in the rain with a hood is no crime.
If anything, I think Zimmerman's behaviour (following someone at a distance with a gun) is much more suspicious than Martin's behaviour (going out in the rain with a hood and looking around as you're walking). There may be circumstances that have not surfaced yet, but given what we know, I think Martin had much more valid reason to be afraid of Zimmerman than vice versa.
Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior.
Dialling 911 is not a prerequisite for being allowed to use force in self-defence, nor is it a legal defence if you use too much force. You're not expected to stop and dial 911 when someone walks up and threatens you with a gun.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
And you know this how? So far, the witnesses are contradicting each other, and the only thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the conflict, while Martin was just bringing home some junk food.
You're basically saying you can walk up and shoot anyone you want, and as long as there are no eye witnesses to contradict your story, and you have some minor scratches, you can blame it on self-defence. Even if the other person had no reason in the world to start a fight.
And, at present, the legal consensus is that Zimmerman commit a lawful act of self defense, so Martin is legally the aggressor, and Zimmerman is legally the victim.
"Consensus" means a large number of people agree on an issue. This is a single prosecutor's decision.
Since there's always the possibility of corruption (in this case, the suspect was a judge's son), we should always be critical of the police's and the prosecutors' work.
There's no duty to retreat in Florida. That was the whole point of "stand your ground". And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable; why should one legally have to retreat if attacked?
Because people are imperfect, and when two people get into an argument that escalates into a fistfight, both may believe the other one is attacking and they're only defending themselves. There needs to be a margin of error.
Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond.
To be fair, Zimmerman reported the youth for wearing a hoodie and looking around suspiciously, and only said he was black when the 911 operator asked him about it. Not that I think it makes Zimmerman's case much better.
Martin was a well-built athlete. Zimmerman, not so much.
No, Martin was a tall, gangly boy, hardly athletic, while Zimmerman was out of shape. Zimmerman was by far the heavier of the two.
If Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman and started beating on him before Zimmerman brandished a weapon, then that makes it a legitimate use-case of SYG.
I find this part of the story improbable. Why would Martin start a fight with a larger, grown man, when he hadn't done anything wrong?
Since Zimmerman was the one who followed Martin, not the other way around, the default assumption should be that Zimmerman was the aggressor. It may turn out there's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of anything, but IMHO, it should be enough for "probable cause".
You don't get charged when the shooting is deemed justified under the law. I don't know how that could be any clearer.
I don't see how it can be clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defence. For starters, the boy had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, which makes Zimmerman's story at least questionable. Also, it was Zimmerman who stalked the boy, not the other way around.
Remember that, in California, you should arrest someone when there's probable cause they didn't act in self-defence. You don't need definite proof to arrest someone.
Or maybe there are really new facts that would show that Zimmerman broke the law somehow - but do you think having thousands of people protesting, riots, and death threats inspired by the Black Panthers is really how this should be handled?
P.S. I mean, think about it. If the police needed to *prove* someone didn't act in self-defence, you could shoot anyone, anywhere, and get away with it, as long as there were no eye witnesses.
The public has to examine how the prosecutors and courts are doing their job, though. They can't let them get away with anything, or they'd soon have wide-spread corruption.
That's why the evidence in a case is usually available for the papers to comment on.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that if Martin turned around and went back to talk to Zimmerman, it proves he started the fight?
But the fact that Zimmerman, to his own addmittance, was following Martin around with a gun for no good reason, doesn't mean anything at all?
Amazing double standards.
It is NOT okay to attack someone just because they are following you.
And we only have Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked first. Martin is dead, so he can't give his version.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, there'd only be Martin's side of the story, and he could easily claim that Zimmerman threatened him first. It wouldn't matter if there were witnesses who saw him on top of Zimmerman, slamming his head into the concrete.
See, it cuts both ways.
Unless, of course, the law treats black people and sons of judges differently.
That's sad. Prosecutor's should follow a common procedure, not prosecute according to their own whims and preferences.
None of those three points are criminal, but they should weigh in when determining if Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death. Well, I don't know about Florida law, but where I live, they'd likely be weighed in.
Following someone is neither provocation or a direct threat to ones safety, it is suspicious, nothing more. Neither side is in the wrong so long as neither is trespassing. Whoever strikes the first blow is the aggressor.
Not if there are other reasons for either party to feel threatened. It's easy to see how Martin could believe his life was in danger if Zimmerman, for example, pulled out his gun, or was acting aggressively, and be justified in striking the first blow.
Given the dead body, Zimmerman's own story, and conflicting eye witnesses, I think it'd be a very good idea to bring the case to trial so a jury can decide. If nothing else, it will put the facts on the table and disspell any suspicions of corruption.
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
That's all people are asking for. A fair trial. But so far, the DA has shown little interest in investigating and prosecuting a possible homicide.
Because the whites declared equality was achieved, and the minorities know that to be a lie. The whites are causing the race war by defending the racists like Zimmerman who killed the boy because he was Black.
Or, possibly, it's a class thing. The people who have money and connections know how to (ab)use the system and look out for each other, and it just happens that there are whites than blacks among them.
In this case, the white guy who is excused for killing someone also happens to be the son of a judge.
You can't just walk up to anyone with a gun and expect them to treat you like a cop. To them, you're the potential criminal, and they're only defending themselves.
Except Zimmerman hadn't actually threatened him. SYG only applies to the threat or use of actual force. Stalking does not qualify.
Obviously, we only have Zimmerman's version of the story, since Martin is dead. But when you find someone with a smoking gun standing over a dead body, you don't take their story at face value. You ask yourself questions like, "Why would Martin attack someone without reason, when he hadn't done anything wrong?" and "Why did Zimmerman go out of his way to find reasons to follow the boy?"
None of this proves Zimmerman is guilty of anything, but it's more than enough reason to investigate and prosecute a possible homicide.
I would not be surprised of that gated community has a requirement underaged visitors must be escorted, they generally do here in CA.
If so, where was the adult?
Yet another example of how people go out of their way to make assumptions that put the blame on Martin instead of Zimmerman.
No, nothing is definitive yet, but almost all the facts so far look bad for Zimmerman. It's rather odd that the DA is showing so little interest in investigating a possible homicide.
It's not what we know, it's what Zimmerman knew and could bet his life on. That's the standard that the police used, and this is a perfect example of why many people don't grok the decision police and prosecutors routinely make.
What about Martin's fears? If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
I think your reasoning only shows how differently the standards are applied to different people.
I think it's more that he looked at the case, didn't think he could get a conviction, and didn't want to spend any more time and resources on a fruitless (to him) case when there is plenty of other work to be done.
It's different when you have a dead body. Possible manslaughter or murder has a high priority, even if a conviction is uncertain.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
So it's perfectly OK for a black man to confront a white man who walks around "suspiciously" in his neighbourhood, shoot him, and then claim the white man attacked him first (for no apparent reason)? And people would immediately leap to the black man's defence, just as you do with Zimmerman?
Yeah, right.
I'm sorry Zimmerman isn't psychic and able to predict whether someone will commit a crime, or assault him.
And I'm sorry Martin is dead, for doing nothing else than walking in the rain wearing a hood and looking around "suspiciously". Regardless of who dealt the first physical blow, Zimmerman was the one who cornered Martin and provoked the fight. For no good reason.
He names himself by the nickname nigga, that suggests to me a person with an attitude problem. They are not unknown to try to start a fight knowing that the moment things go wrong, the other person will back down since no-one wants to take things to far. This is a dog who barked at a cyclist hoping to scare him off. This cyclist stood his ground.
Never mind that Zimmerman was the one whose history shows he had a beef with black people. Never mind that he went out of his way to find reasons to pursue Martin, while Martin was just out to buy junk food, and had no reason to start a fight. Since Martin called himself "Nigga", of course he must be the aggressor.
I'm appalled at the lengths people will go to to excuse Zimmerman's actions. If someone other than the rich son of a judge had acted the same way, nobody would leap to his defence.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime.
And neither had Martin. Going out in the rain with a hood is no crime.
If anything, I think Zimmerman's behaviour (following someone at a distance with a gun) is much more suspicious than Martin's behaviour (going out in the rain with a hood and looking around as you're walking). There may be circumstances that have not surfaced yet, but given what we know, I think Martin had much more valid reason to be afraid of Zimmerman than vice versa.
Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior.
Dialling 911 is not a prerequisite for being allowed to use force in self-defence, nor is it a legal defence if you use too much force. You're not expected to stop and dial 911 when someone walks up and threatens you with a gun.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
And you know this how? So far, the witnesses are contradicting each other, and the only thing we know for sure is that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the conflict, while Martin was just bringing home some junk food.
You're basically saying you can walk up and shoot anyone you want, and as long as there are no eye witnesses to contradict your story, and you have some minor scratches, you can blame it on self-defence. Even if the other person had no reason in the world to start a fight.
And, at present, the legal consensus is that Zimmerman commit a lawful act of self defense, so Martin is legally the aggressor, and Zimmerman is legally the victim.
"Consensus" means a large number of people agree on an issue. This is a single prosecutor's decision.
Since there's always the possibility of corruption (in this case, the suspect was a judge's son), we should always be critical of the police's and the prosecutors' work.
There's no duty to retreat in Florida. That was the whole point of "stand your ground". And, IMO, it's perfectly reasonable; why should one legally have to retreat if attacked?
Because people are imperfect, and when two people get into an argument that escalates into a fistfight, both may believe the other one is attacking and they're only defending themselves. There needs to be a margin of error.
Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond.
To be fair, Zimmerman reported the youth for wearing a hoodie and looking around suspiciously, and only said he was black when the 911 operator asked him about it. Not that I think it makes Zimmerman's case much better.
Martin was a well-built athlete. Zimmerman, not so much.
No, Martin was a tall, gangly boy, hardly athletic, while Zimmerman was out of shape. Zimmerman was by far the heavier of the two.
If Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman and started beating on him before Zimmerman brandished a weapon, then that makes it a legitimate use-case of SYG.
I find this part of the story improbable. Why would Martin start a fight with a larger, grown man, when he hadn't done anything wrong?
Since Zimmerman was the one who followed Martin, not the other way around, the default assumption should be that Zimmerman was the aggressor. It may turn out there's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of anything, but IMHO, it should be enough for "probable cause".
You don't get charged when the shooting is deemed justified under the law. I don't know how that could be any clearer.
I don't see how it can be clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defence. For starters, the boy had no motivation to attack Zimmerman, which makes Zimmerman's story at least questionable. Also, it was Zimmerman who stalked the boy, not the other way around.
Remember that, in California, you should arrest someone when there's probable cause they didn't act in self-defence. You don't need definite proof to arrest someone.
Or maybe there are really new facts that would show that Zimmerman broke the law somehow - but do you think having thousands of people protesting, riots, and death threats inspired by the Black Panthers is really how this should be handled?
Who's talked about riots?
P.S. I mean, think about it. If the police needed to *prove* someone didn't act in self-defence, you could shoot anyone, anywhere, and get away with it, as long as there were no eye witnesses.
The public has to examine how the prosecutors and courts are doing their job, though. They can't let them get away with anything, or they'd soon have wide-spread corruption.
That's why the evidence in a case is usually available for the papers to comment on.