ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
Leo Terrell goes bat crap crazy
Last edited by a moderator:
George Zmmerman trial begins...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Did the Sanford police initially use Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest Zimmerman?
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
An initial arrest at the scene doesn't really mean much SYG or otherwise...even here in NY its not clear that under these circumstances that Zimmerman would have been charged that night. That's what investigations and grand juries are for.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Steve
Mostly Harmless
What are you talking about, don? You're not making sense.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Steve
Mostly Harmless
That's my understanding, too. For what that's worth.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Goes?
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that what actually happened? Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to; Martin is dead and cannot rebut and so far as I know, there were no reliable witnesses who actually saw the whole thing from beginning to end.
Maybe it is what happened, maybe it isn't. Doesn't matter now. Trial's done, Zimmerman is free, and people who are upset by the verdict are going to be upset regardless.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
According to Martins girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin that's what happened
Not actually a witness. I think everyone is agreeing the murder charge was off-base and the manslaughter charge at the very least wasn't proven, but the only surviving eyewitness to the events was biased to one side. It may well have been as simple as he said--but one can imagine other scenarios, including even just a fuller understanding of TM's mindset at the time, that would change one's views of each side's degree of moral culpability.
Of course Zimmerman had a reason. A deranged guy stalking a woman is stalking her for a reason; she's his intended victim. Phrasing it as you do implies that Martin was actually doing something suspecious, and I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument to support. Most of his actions sound consistent with someone finding that they're being followed by someone they don't know.
So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason. What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."
Great post! I find it disturbing that people want to line up behind Zimmerman and treat him like some kind of SD hero. He isn't. It's just as inaccurate as the portrayal of Martin as daddy's little angel.
The only thing that we know for certain is that Zimmerman decided to follow Martin for some nebulous reason, against advice from the 911 operator if I recall, and that he had a vehicle and was armed with a pistol while Martin was unarmed. There was a scuffle and blows were traded, and Zimmerman discharged his firearm killing Martin. Everything else is speculation.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Don't confuse "reason" with "reasonable". Stalking a woman is an illegitimate and unreasonable act. Following someone in your gated community who you don't recognize, who is walking through areas not usual (then running), and in light of recent vandalism/property crimes...is not "unreasonable".
This is why self-defense and LE shoots are judged based on a persons "reasonableness" at the moment of the incident, not on facts discovered long after the fact.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #293
Actually, the one witness, John Good, saw the last part of the fight before the gunshot. He didn't see the gunshot, but he did state under oath that Martin was on top and beating Zimmerman. When Good yelled at the two of them to knock it off, or something to that effect, Martin continued hitting Zimmerman. He then closed his door to get his phone, as he was walking to get it he heard the gun shot. So the last moments of the fight had Martin pounding on Zimmerman and he didn't stop.
As to the wether Zimmerman is immune to a civil suit, this article looks at the issue. This guy called the trial each step of the way, even saying that if the jury returned a verdict Saturday it would be not guilty, and if it went past Saturday the jury would be looking at giving him a manslaughter conviction...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/floridas-self-defense-immunity-law-how-it-really-works/
The Bottom Line
The bottom line, then, is that in Florida a defendant’s motion for self-defense immunity can be made at any time in a hearing before the relevant court, and the standard of evidence for acknowledging immunity is that of a preponderance of the evidence–if it is more likely than not that the use of defensive force was lawful, immunity attaches.
In the case of George Zimmerman, Mark O’Mara clearly understood this criteria for attaching immunity, and similarly would have been well aware that the facts in evidence overwhelming supported a finding of immunity. His decision to forego the pre-trial immunity (not ”Stand-your-Ground”hearing was strategic, not legal, in nature, and a consequence of the massive disinformation campaign and political wars being waged around the trial.
The rest of the article cites the actual cases that went into the immunity aspect of the law...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #294
There is a myth starting up in this case. The prosecutors were going to try to say that Zimmerman followed Martin with the gun in his hand...unfortunately, I am hearing more and more people stating this as fact in some of the threads and conversations I follow. This was never presented in court, and was never mentioned anywhere else by the prosecutor until after the trial when they began talking to the media...it is however beginning to be a part of the anti-Zimmerman mythology.
I don't.
My point was that he had a reason. The media made his reason out to be racially motivated, which I don't buy. But without any reliable witnesses (Zimmerman doesn't count), it's hard to say whether or not his reasoning was justified.
Some people are bullies who like to push people around and who obtain positions that enable them to do that. Some people are busybodies who see threats in non threatening things and act accordingly, be it calling the cops everytime a neighbor puts the trash out on the wrong day or confronting people because they don't act the way you think they should. These people never take into account how their own behavior influences the behavior of those they deal with.
While it is very possible that everything happened as Zimmerman described, reasonable suspicion on Zimmerman's part doesn't address how Zimmerman's action may have actually caused the conflict to escalate. According to the transcript, he ignored the 911 operator's instructions:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
So we know for fact that he was told not to follow, but he did. If his desciption of Martin and Martin's actions is accurate (no eyewitnesses to corroborate), then he was reasonably suspicious.
However, this is entirely filtered through Zimmerman's perceptions as relayed via telephone to an operator. Given that Zimmerman had initiated following Martin, apparently not stealthily, Martin was (based on Zimmerman's phone call) reacting/responding to Zimmerman's actions. Zimmerman's actions up to that point were probably reasonable. It is his actions after the call that are questionable.
At this point, as has been observed, his case went to trial and he was acquitted (not surprising).
Yes, reasonableness that cannot be established due to no eye witnesses. Martin's actions against Zimmerman may have been reasonable too. I'm not implying that they are; only that his account of his actions and his reasoning behind them are unavailable due to his not surviving the conflict.
The whole thing is mythology. Nobody saw anything prior to Martin and Zimmerman fighting. How Zimmerman was following Martin is unknowable unless Zimmerman gave some indication as to what he was actually doing.
Honestly, there shouldn't be any anti or pro Zimmerman. He didn't go out looking for people to lynch and he isn't some SD hero. He and Martin both made a series of decisions that ended with Martin dead and Zimmerman on trial.
There's no side to take here: one combatant lost his life, the other now has a large group of people who hate his guts and may want him dead. Not a happy outcome.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Could any google-fu black belts or anyone tell me the conviction rates for self defense cases where the alleged attacker survived vs where the alleged attacker did not survive.
I know I'm not alone in the idea that we are hearing really one half of the story. As others have said, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth. I agree with that.
So, I wonder how that tends to play out in court. I would bet (were I a betting man) that the acquittal rate for self defense claims, including SYG defenses, is much higher when the alleged aggressor is dead and only one half of the story is told in court. But I could be wrong. In other words, all things being equal in the zimmerman/martin case other than the death of martin, I would guess that an acquittal would be much less likely.
I know I'm not alone in the idea that we are hearing really one half of the story. As others have said, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth. I agree with that.
So, I wonder how that tends to play out in court. I would bet (were I a betting man) that the acquittal rate for self defense claims, including SYG defenses, is much higher when the alleged aggressor is dead and only one half of the story is told in court. But I could be wrong. In other words, all things being equal in the zimmerman/martin case other than the death of martin, I would guess that an acquittal would be much less likely.
Last edited:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
I don't read "We don't need you to do that" as an instruction. Or "Ok" as a refusal......
OP
- Thread Starter
- #299
Here is a look at Stand Your Ground laws. Did anyone know that California has an even more aggressive stand your ground law?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/attorney-andrew-branca-participates-on-npr-panel/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/attorney-andrew-branca-participates-on-npr-panel/
I've found that it isn't easy to overcome various early memes established by the media about what happened, even after the evidence has been presented and runs quite contrary to some of those memes that were created in a rush to judgement. As the facts have been laid out again and again we have found that there was a specific reason Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin, and that the non-emergency operator stated that they didn't need Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin. Of course in hindsight "we don't need you to do that" turns in to an obvious ominous warning.
