Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[yubba]

Crime ABC Shows Alleged Bloodied Image of Zimmerman’s Head on Night of Martin Shooting

• Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:33am by Billy Hallowell
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (207)

Watch the live stream of George Zimmerman’s 9 a.m. ET hearing at the end of this article.




not a slam dunk but it does prove that he was getting his head bashed in, so it's down to kill or be killed, if Zimmerman would have had his weapon drawn I believe the kid would be still alive.

[mookiemookie]

The photo shows that Zimmerman was injured in the altercation, which wasn't really in doubt (except for people trying to use grainy police station footage as some sort of proof that he wasn't) but what it doesn't and cannot prove is who was the aggressor. I still contend that if someone were chasing me with a gun, I'd fight back hard enough to injure them too. I guess that's going to be up to the jury to decide....obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

But I still think it's a scary thing for the state to sanction killing someone else in a situation that you yourself created.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

...obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

Or they knew that if he wasn't charged with something there would be riots this summer. There may still be depending on the verdict.

[yubba]

Sounds like Z made bail I guess there will be many fanning the flames of hate, instead of addressing the issues of our communties, to rid ourselves of this criminal element that instills fear into all of us that live here in central Florida it's turning into a war zone. Just last month a female Deputy Sherriff was shot and killed here in Brevard County.

[Sailor Steve]

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here. This holds true for the people trying to crucify him before all is revealed, but condemning either one out of hand makes you the problem, not the solution.

[Aramike]

This, in itself is not a crime.

And ... I said it was a crime, where? (I'm guessing you're referring to the "activity" and not the "watching" as that would make more sense).

And before you say I implied it, the only thing I implied was "reasonably suspicious" - not a crime.

It seems worth mentioning that Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime, either.

The part where Z shot T. The default in this situation is some variant of murder unless Z has a proper affirmative defense. Even by the rather loose Floridan law he doesn't because his tracking can be considered provocative. Being provocative itself is not a crime. However, due to this Z's use of force cannot be justified under 776.012, only under 776.041. He has a duty to retreat. And he is not protected by 776.032, so the police can and should arrest him, grill him and force him to prove his affirmative defense in court.

He might still get his day in court if he can demonstrate to preponderance of evidence that
1) Trevor attacked him first, because tracking isn't that great a provocation and probably doesn't justify Trevor' use of force (IF he struck first).
2) He really reasonably believed at that moment he was about to die, despite the fact he wasn't worried enough to go to the hospital.

Even if he doesn't prove 2, if he can prove 1 he would probably get some kind of lowball sentence.

I'm sorry, friend, but your entire post was a prime candidate for "post that misses the point" of the decade. You're making huge assumptions on a sequence of events which are contested, and applying the law as though your assumption is true. Zimmerman CLAIMS that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked, which, if accurate, invalidates everything you cite.

Yet, I wasn't arguing a single damn thing on a primarily legal level. Rather, I was making a point on a "put yourself in this situation level" - a human one. Like it or not, despite the fact that somehow you've reached a technical verdict (which in and of itself implies that the spirit of the very legal system you cite completely escapes you), a jury is going to consider the emotional situation ... which is actually ALSO part of the law.

The legal system wasn't designed to be treated the way you try to, which is a reason cases aren't presented before courts in the way you argue them on this message board.

Yet, despite all of that, I must reiterate you're missing the point of my post. I won't regurgitate here in a "quote this/respond to this" fashion, as I think I was pretty clear that I was simply referring to being in Zimmerman's shoes without considering the finer points of the law.

Most importantly, my point was that, while I probably wouldn't have acted in the same way he did, I don't find it a stretch that others would. In other words, although I may not agree with him, I can see where he was coming from.

And that has not a damned thing to do with 776.041 .. or any other statute.

PS: I'm curious - will you stipulate that Zimmerman acted legally if he is acquitted?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The photo shows that Zimmerman was injured in the altercation, which wasn't really in doubt (except for people trying to use grainy police station footage as some sort of proof that he wasn't) but what it doesn't and cannot prove is who was the aggressor. I still contend that if someone were chasing me with a gun, I'd fight back hard enough to injure them too. I guess that's going to be up to the jury to decide....obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

But I still think it's a scary thing for the state to sanction killing someone else in a situation that you yourself created.

Fair enough - but I wonder if Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun. Your point seems counter-intuitive - most people try to avoid an armed pursuer - not attack them.

While I concede that you may be right that Zimmerman got close enough to Martin that Martin felt his life was in danger, I simply refuse to ASSUME that. Perhaps you're right - Zimmerman flashed his piece and was close enough that Martin thought he was fighting for his life.

But I can also see how you COULD be wrong.

Bottom line is that we don't convict people on a 50/50 proposition.

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here.

As was stated. He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt therefore he is a gangsta so is a criminal who should be shot.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As was stated. He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt therefore he is a gangsta so is a criminal who should be shot.

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea and skittles....if people fear what these gangsta thugs can do with a package of Skittles just think of the mass hysteria it would cause if they armed themselves with Snickers.

HunterICX

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea

He should have been armed with Vanilla Ice, its less intimidating so they wouldn't have assumed he was a real gansta.

[antikristuseke]

Has to be done.

[August]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea and skittles....if people fear what these gangsta thugs can do with a package of Skittles just think of the mass hysteria it would cause if they armed themselves with Snickers.

HunterICX

A 6.2 foot tall athlete doesn't anything to beat another man to death but his hands, which is exactly what the evidence released so far says Martin was attempting to do. A punch in the nose is one thing but sitting on top of another person and beating his head into concrete is attempting to kill or seriously injure them.

It's also not a way of disarming a person with a gun since with his hands on Zimmermans head he is not stopping him from drawing and shooting.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Aramike

It seems worth mentioning that Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime, either.I'm sorry, friend, but your entire post was a prime candidate for "post that misses the point" of the decade. You're making huge assumptions on a sequence of events which are contested, and applying the law as though your assumption is true. Zimmerman CLAIMS that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked, which, if accurate, invalidates everything you cite.

What I am saying is that the tracking, which he undeniably initiated, invalidated his qualification to claim self-defense under 776.012. With that provocation, he can only claim it under 776.041, even if I accept his claim that he was trying to break off (by the way, you DID not mention that part in your previous post) b/c of the short elapsed time.

Yet, I wasn't arguing a single damn thing on a primarily legal level. Rather, I was making a point on a "put yourself in this situation level" - a human one.

Here's my opinion on the moral level. Given the end result, which was definitely at least partially his fault, he should have been subject to a most thorough investigation and court trial to define the elements of the case, instead of being allowed to walk off under the protection of 776.032.

Like it or not, despite the fact that somehow you've reached a technical verdict (which in and of itself implies that the spirit of the very legal system you cite completely escapes you), a jury is going to consider the emotional situation ... which is actually ALSO part of the law.

I don't deny them that right. I did say he might get his day in court, did I? I wasn't being sarcastic.

For the "spirit" part, the lawmaker who made those laws in the first place did say how the police interpreted it sure wasn't what he meant.

I'll argue, further, that I am using the "Provocation" part of 776.041, which is written w/ interpretive room in comparison to the excessive detail elsewhere in the clauses in the sense that it was intended to. The vagueness ensures that unless the attacker hit you completely out of the blue, you'll have to take care to ensure that you hadn't provoked him. Otherwise, you may still win your day eventually, but only after sweating it out in front of police and courts, an experience unpleasant and costly enough to have its own deterrent effect.

It encourages the avoidance of maneuvers that may be considered provocative. If you are aware you are partially at fault in any confrontation, it encourages you to retreat. It gives the policemen an "out" to actually investigate suspicious cases like this one, rather than being forced to look the other way thanks to 776.032, which I don't think was the intent of that law either.

You can stand your ground, but be careful not to provoke people as well - surely, that is morally the correct thing as well.

PS: I'm curious - will you stipulate that Zimmerman acted legally if he is acquitted?

Sure. As I said, he DOES have a case. If he establishes his affirmative defense and the jury weighs it and says it is self-defense, OK acquit him. But don't let him slither away under the protection of 776.032, his culpability in this business is not low enough that he qualifies, or should qualify for that. I suspect you even agree with this, or else you wouldn't be saying

although I may not agree with him, I can see where he was coming from.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here. This holds true for the people trying to crucify him before all is revealed, but condemning either one out of hand makes you the problem, not the solution.

what I'm trying to put across is that we have a lot of crime here in central Florida and people are on edge, just two days ago we have had two teenagers shot and killed gangland style and their bodies burnt close to Orlando and there have been more shootings and killings, carjackings and home invasions, since this story has broke and the sad thing about this, is that this is going to happen again. I just watched a couple hundred motorcycles go by in tribute to the fallen female officer we lost last month. So why did Z follow M , because he was protecting his neigborhood and was doing what he thought was right, M would be still be alive if he had either ran for it and went home or respectively ask Z what was up, and told Z who he was and where he was going. So if you look like a thug act like a thug, then you must be Mother Terreshia. so shoot me for misspelling her name. And if this makes it to trial a good defence lawyer is going to show how much of a little thug Trayvon really was, how crappy his parents were, and how messed up the black community really is. You know what, your right, I am assume-ing that he was, because I see too much of this crap, stop the crime and stop imbrace-ing the gangster lifesyle.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by yubba

what I'm trying to put across is that we have a lot of crime here in central Florida and people are on edge, just two days ago we have had two teenagers shot and killed gangland style and their bodies burnt close to Orlando and there have been more shootings and killings, carjackings and home invasions, since this story has broke and the sad thing about this, is that this is going to happen again. I just watched a couple hundred motorcycles go by in tribute to the fallen female officer we lost last month. So why did Z follow M , because he was protecting his neigborhood and was doing what he thought was right, M would be still be alive if he had either ran for it and went home or respectively ask Z what was up, and told Z who he was and where he was going. So if you look like a thug act like a thug, then you must be Mother Terreshia. so shoot me for misspelling her name. And if this makes it to trial a good defence lawyer is going to show how much of a little thug Trayvon really was, how crappy his parents were, and how messed up the black community really is. You know what, your right, I am assume-ing that he was, because I see too much of this crap, stop the crime and stop imbrace-ing the gangster lifesyle.

Good point Yubba.