reasonable doubt in the actual court room almost always hinges on one or two minute details...there is no 'cut and dried'. Further, the defense doesn't have to prove any of the things you are stating. I suspect Martin didn't know or there would be no way to prove he did know, that zim was armed until he was being shot, so fear of an "armed stranger" would be a point of possible reasonable doubt. If zim approached martin and martin, even justifiably, got agitated and decided to kick zims ass which sounds probable according to the 2 witnesses released this morning..if he was afraid and not angry he wouldn't have responded this way. They don't have to "prove martin was the aggressor", beyond possibly throwing the first punch/battery, the act of following or even speaking to martin would not equal justification for battery. They do not have to prove Martin was in "the act of committing a crime", zim had the right to follow and speak to martin, martin had the right not to answer or respond, if martin did respond by committing the first battery, pushing zim..simply laying hands on him, it could create reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying this is what happened, it would be a plausible defense. Zimmerman's conviction or acquittal will hinge on minutia. I would bet even money at this point either way.

Hmmm....fear is complex emotion...the responses are very basic and different in all people....it comes down to the instinctual "fight or flight" ....I feel based on the information available that Martin was trying avoid the situation and Zim kept initiating contact...Martin is a urban kid...they know when someone is on them...and the situation looks like Zim kept making a confrontation unavoidable....without any official identifying markings like a police or security uniform, Martin could not see Zim as anything other than a threat...and when he was eventually forced by Zimmerman into a confrontation....I believe the "fight or flight" reaction took charge and in a young adult male....certainly fight is a reasonable option...

I disagree that the defense does not have to prove Martin was committing or about commit a crime....the justification for Zimmerman to stalk and confront Martin requires it. If it is missing then the motivation is something different that is outside of ZImmerman's self declared role of "neighborhood watch" captain. The fact that martin cannot defend his own actions and is dead makes the case hinge on motivations and on ZImmermans actions. ZImmerman's testimony if he takes the stand will be interesting as well as the cross.

all in all this case is fascinating....and I think all can agree the outcome will set an interesting precedent.

They forget this is in a state that, for all it's Miami neon and Disney glow, was an area that is very much the DEEP south, where the Klan had no problem stringing up minorities.

Look at NYPDs policy of stopping and frisking black males for no other reason than being black. I know "vigilante nutcase" was mentioned, but is it any better when it is done by a sanctioned group?

Zimmerman had a license to carry it concealed. Obviously at some point he drew it from concealment. When do you believe that happened?

I ask because you stated "...stalked him with a gun," which seems to mean that the gun gave Trayvon reason to fear for his life. If the gun was concealed until just before the shooting, your theory doesn't add up.

When the gun was drawn is secondary.

He just knew he was being followed by a stranger whose actions seemed threatening.

Correct?

...then why wasn't there a 911 call from Martin?

I remember being that age.

possibilities.

he was chased. he was running for his life, and Zimmerman ran him down.

A witness saw one man chasing another.

His girlfriend's statement is that he stopped running away because Zimmerman was catching up with him and he couldn't run any more. That he was afraid.

So Martin's fear, which happens to be quite reasonable, is known. And that Zimmerman was not just following but was actively chasing him, is also known.

In chasing him, Zimmerman threatened him. That is assault.

Martin stood his ground and defended himself, as he had every legal right to do.

In the verbal altercation, one witness described a loud, domineering, argumentative man's voice, and a young voice. Zimmerman didn't just ask what Martin was doing there. He demanded it.

He could have simply identified himself and asked nicely what Martin was doing there, but he didn't. He was loud, domineering and argumentative. He was threatening. Again, assault. The police report states that Zimmerman could have avoided killing Martin. That was the basis of their wanting to file reckless manslaughter.

Even if he punched Zimmerman first, he had a right to defend himself from the assault, when he was being chased and again when he was being grilled by a strange man.

As far as Zimmerman killing Martin, he has to prove that he could only defend himself with lethal force. While Martin was winning the fistfight, Zimmerman was armed. He did not have to shoot his gun to defend himself. He needed only to show it. He could have stopped yelling for help and instead yelled I have a gun. He didn't even try. Somehow while supposedly getting his head slammed into the sidewalk, he managed to pull his gun out, release the safety, aim and shoot to kill. Even if he felt the need to shoot, he did not need to aim at Martin's heart. At that distance, that was not a "lucky" shot.

"Even if he punched Zimmerman first, he had a right to defend himself from the assault,"

Not with battery.

"While Martin was winning the fistfight,"

If Martin initiated the physical part of this confrontation as you say is possible in the first quote above, and was "winning" the fist fight (which causes more deaths annually than all rifle deaths combined), and martin was on top hitting zims head against the ground, zim would be an idiot to point his gun without using it...martin would take it away and use it on him. This is completely contrary to any and all defensive shooting instruction..everyone who is trained, from police to private citizens, are trained not to use their gun in this fashion (as a threat) and certainly not in these circumstances.

"Even if he felt the need to shoot, he did not need to aim at Martin's heart."

All defensive shooting training centers around shooting "center of mass"...always, no exceptions. No shooting to wound. If one is in a position of having to shoot defensively, it is center of mass (the chest).

but Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with lethal force once he had run his quarry down? I don't think so.


You either have a right to defend yourself from a threat, or you do not. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You have ruled out a single option for Zimmerman -- shooting to wound versus to kill. That still leaves plenty of other options he had that were short of lethal force. Such as not shooting at all. Not threatening once he ran him down.

According to legal experts, Zimmerman will need to prove that he felt his life was in such danger that lethal force was needed. It wasn't. Right up until he pulled the trigger, he had another choice.

Martin didn't use anything close to lethal force. He didn't even put Zimmerman in the hospital, as Zimmerman proved when he refused hospitalization not once, but three times on the night of the murder.

I, like everyone else, don't know what exactly happened. But if zim was using words and martin laid hands on zim first, martin committed battery. You have a right to defend yourself with physical force only after the other person commits battery or attempts a battery (swing and miss, etc.), not before.

According to legal experts, Zimmerman will need to prove that he felt his life was in such danger that lethal force was needed. It wasn't.

There is no way for you to know this. If martin was on top and struck zims head against the concrete even once, his life was in danger. A person's head cannot take hitting against concrete. In the movies fist fights always end in superficial injury, in the real world hundreds of people die and are permanently injured each year from injuries sustained in fights where no weapon beyond hands or feet are used.

I don't disagree that this was handled poorly or that zim isn't an idiot or maybe even guilty of murder 2. My point is for those who believe this is a slam dunk, they're wrong..there almost is no such thing as a slam dunk criminal case...particularly when the victim can't tell his side of the story.

Martin didn't use anything close to lethal force. He didn't even put Zimmerman in the hospital,

How many head hits does it take to render a person unconscious? How many more would it have taken before zim wouldn't have had a choice about getting treatment? How many times should zim have waited for before, in your mind, he would have been justified in defending himself?

There is no reasonable way to argue that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor. In fact, given the evidence, it is pretty despicable to try and twist this into anything else than a crazy person murdering an innocent teenager. Zimmerman still might get out of this. If he does this will be due to a failure of the justice system.

the aggressor from the start, only that he escalated the confrontation from words to physical altercation. I'm not saying in doing that he was acting totally unreasonably, just that usually the first person who commits battery is the one who is charged.

The justice system is designed to convict most of the time. There is necessarily a tradeoff designed to convict criminal acts usually while making it difficult to convict people wrongly accused. If it is easier to convict, innocent people will be convicted. If it is too hard to convict, too many guilty will go free. There is no easy answer. I believe that the prospect of a few guilty going free outweighs the tragedy of innocent being punished for crimes they didn't commit.

The article here is an interesting read..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=710269

zimmerman claims he only pulled and used the gun as Martin was "repeatedly bashing his head against the concrete." That right there is BS. No one can sustain having their head bashed repeatedly against concrete in this manner without sustaining a serious concussion, being knocked cold, or killed. Concrete is incredibly hard and doesn't give. I know because I fell on concrete onto my knee once and the impact completely dislodged my patella tendon from the bone and required surgery to reattach. And that's a knee with just one, not repeated impacts. Imagine the damage repeated bashing of someone's head on concrete would cause. zimmerman is full of it. If he had just said "my head got scratched during the scuffle", he would be more believable but he over embellished the cause of the scratch on his head to justify the killing (which is probably why the lead investigator wanted to charge him that night). Yet we all saw the video of him climbing unassisted out of the patrol car, while handcuffed no less, and walk with no sign of injury or of being in a life and death struggle 30 minutes earlier.

week old threads unless there is some very significant update to the subject of the thread..just sayin'..

welcome to DU

week out. Is it necessary then to reply in snark to a relatively newbie that way?

I know you are the resident expert on snark so finding snark where there is none isn't surprising..

etiquette?

Resident snark expert? snort

So that's the law here at DU? Even if you were out of town and are just catching up? Sounds kinda rigid to me . . . just sayin'.

Testimony from Martin's girlfriend corroborates those 2 witnesses.

Maybe you could link to the witnesses that overheard Zimmerman trying to talk Trayvon out of beating him up.

Again, a single option for Zimmerman is ruled out. It is good to know that he finally decided to follow a rule. He still had the options to :

Follow police advice and not follow
Follow the HOA Rules and call, but do not attempt to intervene or engage
Not escalate following into chasing and running Martin down
Explain to Martin who he was and why he was chasing him
Tell Martin, from a safe distance, that he had a gun and to wait for police to arrive
Aim the gun, but leave the safety on
Aim the gun, take the safety off, but don't pull the trigger

7 options short of lethal force that he chose not to use.

Martin's options were much, more more limited. He was not out looking for trouble, he was looking to get home in one piece. He didn't know who Zimmerman was, what he wanted, whether or not he was alone or had accomplices lurking somewhere. Until right before Zimmerman killed him, he didn't know whether or how Zimmerman was armed.

Martin's options were:

Run, until he couldn't run any more
Call 911 -- except he probably didn't expect help from the police
Fight.

Simple fight or flight were his options. Once he was run into the ground, because he was out of breath and Zimmerman was catching up with him, that left him fight.

But you're right. It will be up to a jury who gets to hear all the evidence, including Zimmerman's multiple stories, assuming it gets to trial.

Personally, I'm betting on a plea. Not counting on it, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Such are the realities, reinforced time and time again.

Because the black person would fear for his life, and would be automatically justified in using deadly force on the person who is following him.

then no, you shouldn't.

In our society today, we all have heard of the cases, Ted Bundy and the like. No one is going to be blasé about some stranger following them.

than Martin's reaction. Would George Zimmerman have had the bravado to follow someone he deemed suspicious if he didn't have a gun with him? Doubtful.

You nailed it. zimmerman was emboldened by the knowledge that he had a gun. No way would he have been that aggressive if he didn't think he had the upper hand. That's why I think he's the one who initiated the confrontation. It looks as though he bit off more than he could chew though as Martin got the best of him in the physical struggle so zimmerman pulled the gun and killed him. I really believe it's as simple as that. zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and got mad. And as far as the screaming for help it had to be Martin as no grown man armed with a gun is going to be screaming like a baby for help when he knows he has a gun loaded gun on him.

The last thing you want to do is get into a situation in which you need to shoot someone.

People who carry guns regularly often say that it causes them to avoid conflicts.

Of course maybe Zimmerman is an idiot and not like normal people; but a normal person is not "emboldened" when carrying a concealed firearm.

It's pretty apparent that zimmerman isn't a normal person or he wouldn't have created the situation that resulted in the killing of Martin. He should certainly not be carrying.

Last edited Sat May 26, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

.. no disputing who was the aggressor in this case, and who initiated the conflict. Zimmerman was NOT an officer of the law nor does some podunk, redneck HOA have the authority to unilaterally appoint him as one.

I'm not however, as confident about the outcome of this trial as you are. I hope you are correct, but have serious doubts that justice can or will be be served.

for the death of Martin.
But your conclusions that justice will be done is faulty in so many ways.
Zimmerman has power and money behind him as well as every right winger in the country and if you think justice can be done for a black kid with no power and money behind him you are dreaming.
Right now they are muddying the waters and if any jury ever gets to hear the case it will be selected from right wingers that will be drawn from a pool of closeted bigots and the outcome will be obvious.

I know I am cynical but it is not without experience because I lived in Florida for many years and I know those people...and have seen many injustices...and things have not changed.

but I think Trayvon Martin would have trouble getting justice in many places - not just the Deep South part of Florida.

I see either a hung jury or enough reasonable doubt created that Zimmerman gets off.

I agree with you insofar as seeking justice for Trayvon--and I've marched wih other DUers in support of that cause. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/12521853 )

But right now we have dribs and drabs of partial information being reported, with reactions to every little thing, and our opinions, based on incomplete information, don't really mean much.

In the end, it will be the trial itself that will determine whether or not we'll see justice for Trayvon.

You stated ".....due to the fact that the innocent teenager rightfully feared for his life...."

Is the act of being followed reason enough in and of itself to use deadly force against that person following you? I don't think so. The follower must take some other action to make the person being followed reasonably believe that there is imminent harm before it becomes reasonable to use force against the follower. Maybe Zimmerman did that something more, I don't know.

I don't think it is proper to say that Trayvon was being followed therefore he had the right to use force against Zimmerman.

I have been followed for all sorts of innocence reasons in my life.....none of which give me any standing whatsoever to use force against the person following me.

So the question about whether he would or would not have been allowed to is irrelevant.

The worst he has been accused of is throwing a punch.

Just a punch.
Irrelevant, if he did.

Keep telling yourself that.


(Hint: it does not matter if you and I know that Trayvon Martin was not a credible deadly threat to Zimmerman, all the defense must do is show that Zimmerman had credible reason to believe his life was in danger, which is a much, much lower bar, and IT IS relevant, even if it sounds incredibly unjust to us. People can be beaten to death by fists and feet, indeed it is a rather larger category in the 'murder weapons' table of the FBI unified crime report. All of these things will be raised by the defense, and all of these things may introduce doubt into the jury's minds.

Fortunately, we don't know for sure that Trayvon threw a punch and he may not have. One of the prosecution's strategies will be to attempt to show he did not. If he did, the prosecution's job will be much harder. I do not envy them their jobs, this case is not nearly as cut and dried as so many have pronounced.)

IF Trayvon threw a punch, he did not throw one like a real fighter. I know teenagers who, if they had found themselves in the same predicament, would have hit Zimmerman so hard so fast he would have forgotten he had a gun. A tiny cut on the finger? Those are not black eyes in that picture. A serious ass whipping is obviously foreign to some folks. Zimmerman wasn't fighting for his life, he was fighting because as the old folks say, "He bit off more than he could chew." He found himself in a situation that did not warrant a gun. A 28 year old man punked out after he intimidated a 17 year old. Case closed. There article on Think Progress paints a pretty clear picture of Zimmerman. He desperately wants/needs to feel superior.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/18/486523/audio-witness-says-george-zimmerman-repeatedly-bullied-him-at-work-targeted-him-with-racist-jokes/

Zimmerman might not go to jail, but his ass won't be worth much on the street either.

Trayvon absolutely used force against Zimmerman (unless you think Zimmerman broke his own nose and cut his own head). The question then becomes was Trayvon's use of the force justified? It has been regularly stated on this site and at least implied by your post than for no other reason than Zimmerman was following Trayvon that Trayvon's use of force was justified. I'm simply disagreeing with that assertion. Someone simply following you is not reason to turn and use force against them. Zimmerman must have done something more to make Trayvon fear for his life. Which by the way I'm perfectly willing to accept he did if the evidence supports that. In which case Zimmerman is fucked.

Zimmerman wasn't going to allow this one to "get away".

Trayvon justification to use force against him? If the best that the prosecution can offer is "Zimmerman was following him" then I think Zimmerman walks. That may be very unfortunate because the reality is quite likely that there was more going on than Zimmerman simply following but the prosecution is going to have to prove that. That could be a tough row to hoe.

Trayvon had every right to "Stand His Ground" as did Zimmerman (with or without a gun)...right?

Everyone has the right to stand their ground when reasoably threatened. What specifically did Zimmerman do to threaten Trayvon?

The answer to that has to be more than "Zimmerman was following him".

EDIT

I actually don't believe in the SYG laws. I think we should all have a duty to retreat. However I recognize that is just not the reality of this situation given the laws in Florida.

There is no middle ground here. Either Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin started a confrontation. And based on the characters of each, their background, and what is on the 911 tape it is IMO beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Zimmerman who started it.

If you presume Zimmerman innocent then this means you presume Trayvon Martin guilty.

hoe

You may not have heard that the prosecution has asked for evidence to be sealed because zimmerman made several incriminating statements the night of the killing. Apparently they don't want the details to come out until the trial. This sounds like the prosecutor knew what she was doing with the 2nd degree murder charge. Doesn't sound good for zimmerman.

If that is what he said (i couldn't tell) I don't see that as a confession of murder. It could just as reasonably mean I'm going to keep an eye on this guy until the cops that I'm on the phone with get here. Not hey I'm gonna go shoot me somebody.

They are "these assholes always get away" and "fucking coons."

One thing is for sure...Trayvon wasn't being the aggressor for the last 40 seconds of his life while he was crying and begging for help.

Think Progress has just written of a new witness...an ex coworker of Zimmerman...Middle Eastern...spoke up about Zimmerman harassing him and threatening to kill his family...just another piece of the puzzle, exposing Zimmerman's psychopathic tendencies...and the beat goes on.

You are followed by vehicle and then vigorously on foot. The person following you gets close enough for you to ask, "Why are you following me?" Instead of identifying himself as neighborhood watch, he asks, "What are you doing around here?" Obviously, this was asked in a demanding way. How much intimidation was Trayvon supposed to endure before he struck out? Would you turn your back on a person who was demanding to know what you were doing around here when you were simply minding your own business?

Who the hell is Zimmerman to question people walking down the street? Following a person is not illegal, it's stupid. The dispatcher told him not to do it because it was stupid and dangerous. The trouble Zimmerman bought is not innocent. He killed someone's child who was minding his own business. No one will ever know exactly what transpired between the two, but it is certain that Zimmerman is not innocent. If you run down trouble and catch it . . . it's yours.

The accusation is that Martin threw a punch, then was on top of Zimmerman beating his head against the concrete. A head cannot take a lot of beating against the concrete without producing a fear of great bodily harm or death. Beating a head against concrete is deadly force. Not saying this is what happened, just that your statement, "The worst he has been accused of is throwing a punch.", is factually incorrect. And once again your over simplification of this incident is naive, from a criminal justice standpoint.

and surely, zimmerman has no reason whatsoever to try to paint himself as a victim. lying bastard.

it is hard for the deceased in this case to make a statement contrary to anything zim wants to say. The only hope is if the physical evidence or witnesses prove zim to be lying..whether zim is lying is irrelevant if it can't be proven.

and that "zim" was not duly badged as an officer of the law (which would give him some presumption of authority), it SHOULD be incumbent on "zim" to prove that he was justified in killing the teenager. (Edit to add: even if "zim" were a police officer, in MOST police departments the incident would have been much more thoroughly investigated than this incident apparently was initially.)

If he can't prove it, then he SHOULD go to jail.

I believe in "presumption of innocence" but I think that applies FIRST to the person who ended up DEAD.

Please note that I am NOT saying this is how our system is set up. I am saying this is how it SHOULD work. (I have exactly zero faith that it will work this way. I expect "zim" will walk.)

If you kill a stranger in your house and there is evidence the stranger broke into your house, that is probably enough evidence of justification (even if in the reality that only you know, you didn't have to kill the person). But in this case, "zim" (what a friendly sounding shorthand for his name) clearly pursued someone who was doing nothing illegal, and was not threatening "zim" in any way to cause "zim" to chase him. That the someone being chased without provocation ended up dead, should be enough to land the chaser behind bars, no matter what happened during the encounter, because the encounter was absolutely caused by the chaser, who could have broken off any time before it became physical.

At least according to the evidence released this morning. Both witnesses gave matching accounts of TM on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.

without producing more than a minor cut.

force is justifiable? How many times does it take to kill or seriously injure someone? I suggest that number is 1 or more, and if my head is beat once, I am going to do what ever is necessary to keep it from happening twice.

While I still think Zimmerman is guilty, there is a helluva of lot of documentation not released that is relevant which will be critical to getting a conviction.

You are of course few to hold your simplistic views, but they are not accurate when it comes to the way the law and the legal system works.

I believe that is going to be the basis of Zimmerman's defense.

It won't even be a "Stand Your Ground" situation if they can make the case that Trayvon was the aggressor.

Just to be abundantly clear, I have always said that Zimmerman is at fault because he initiated the entire episode. But I can see how the defense could make a case that at some point Zimmerman's pursuit of Trayvon was broken off; i.e. that the engagement ended, and that Trayvon initiated a new one.

You'd be OK with a stranger following you? I'd call 911 or seek help immediately.

I don't know who you think is doing that, but I defend due process. Depending on how the physical confrontation began, Zimmerman may walk on a Murder 2 charge.

I don't give a shit if you don't like it.
I don't give a shit if you think this is 'defending Zimmerman'. (I do not like him, and I think he is probably guilty, even though I also think it is unlikely he will be convicted on the charge of Murder 2)
Reality is not always pleasant, and our courts do not always deliver justice.

""Who was on top" and "who threw the first punch" are completely irrelevant to the case."
Uh huh. Welp, thanks for credible pronouncements on this case. Glad you're not a prosecutor in Florida on this case, because a defense lawyer would eat you for lunch.

OP.

Yeah, I care about that. But I do not care if he doesn't like it. The law is the law. The legal system is what it is.

The opinion that certain things are 'irrelevant' is applicable to social converstations, but not to a trial. It IS relevant, whether the poster likes it or not.

it is now being manipulated by zimmerman and others to paint the victim as the criminal, based almost exclusively on the claims of the armed vigilante who killed him.

The murder two charge makes me worry that he will be held to account for even that.

The FBI may be angling to hit him with additional charges, which is good, because then he won't skate, even if the murder 2 charge doesn't stick.

He will get a vigorous defense, which we are all entitled to when accused of crime.

While I think this shooting was clearly wrong, the cops, who tend to overcharge only asked for manslaughter. I tend to think that is the best that can be done.

which is not immune to the isms in the rest of the culture, including the media.

It is pretty likely that someone, say the clerk, in that gas station will also be armed and expecting me to rob the place. So the clerk might reach under the table for a weapon, at which point there is a credible threat to my life, so I shoot the clerk. I get off on self-defense.

Hardly a likely scenario.

Unless you can prove that Zimmerman brandished his weapon when he approached Trayvon.

If you can prove that, the prosecution would like to hear from you.

Should I have considered him a threat? Actually, I DID consider him a threat until I realized his intentions.

Chasing him is a broad term, which many different implications, not all of them necessarily threatening to Trayvon.

The defense is going to spend a lot of time on this point.

and Martin had no idea zimmerman considered himself some type of authority. for all Martin knew, he could have been a rapist...or a murderer. Martin had every right to walk down that street without being questioned by a nobody with a cop complex. zimmerman seemed convinced Martin was up to something other than walking home from the store, and no doubt approached him from that perspective. i doubt he was friendly or explained himself, given other indications of his sense of entitlement. i doubt zimmerman approached Martin as if he wanted to return his wallet.

But that will need to be established for the jury.

This is one reason some of us caution that the picture is incomplete for the public. We don't have the entire set of evidence. I don't know how the moment of confrontation unfolded. I have my suspicions, and they reflect what you just said, but I don't know.

because the other person who knows what happened is dead. as i mentioned before, zimmerman's credibility will be the determining factor in this case.

Remember, the police investigating it, specifically Serino, recommended charges be filed the night of the shooting. He was overruled by the DA. (This may point to nepotism, as Zimmerman's father is a judge. I think the FBI needs to look at Wolfinger's phone records the night of)

I think justice MAY come at trial, via testimony we are not yet publicly aware of.

you are committing a forcible felony and lose any claim to self-defense because you're the initial aggressor.

That's a major legal question here, whether whatever zimmerman did first rendered him the initial aggressor thereby taking away his claim to self defense. If he had his gun drawn, then I would think that's pretty clear.

I'm sorry, I should have listed those exceptions. I've quoted that statutory provision so many times, and I just didn't this time as I should have to be accurate. I do think it's very important to be accurate with the law.

I think there is no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is fully to blame for everything that happened. A jury may or may not see it differently. I think they will not see it differently. But by all means, due process is what should happen.

discussing his guilt or innocence on the internet is an attempt to deny him due process. if we discuss the case, we are treating zimmerman the way he treated Martin someone actually wrote that in a thread

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

"I should add that the people defending Zimmerman are esentially defending muggery, since they are implying that a person can follow an innocent person with a gun an then kill him after he rightfully flips out from fear."

Will you walk this statement back, since it essentially attempts to deny others the right to air their opinion? Some people are of the opinion that Zimmerman will walk, for various legal technicalities. (Over-reach on the charge and why it is an over-reach would be first on the list) You declared certain things irrelevent, when they are highly relevant to whether he will be found guilty.

Maybe he walks.

In "defending" I mean defending his behavior. I think there is no doubt that he caused the confrontation due to his mindset. I also doubt that any new evidence will come up that sheds a better light on him.

"Defending" in the legal sense of disputing the factuality of him causing the confrontation and the death of Trayvon Martin, have at it.

And no, I am not denying others the right to their opinion. I am stating what I think that their opinion implies in MY opinion. I am not attempting to censor them or something similar.

I don't see them

But I have seen them.

I see you are meeting the "Defenders of Muggery"

Sad, but true.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!”

was standing his ground.

A sane jury ? Not in central Florida. I,m afraid he will be acquitted and then the riots will start.

Zimmerman's forces of evil and justice obstruction are still hard at work.
There's been so much evidence, opinion and comment that finding a sane jury is now virtually impossible.

It's amazing. Really.

the more people you have to protect, the worse things get.
Eventually the whole hose of cards collapses but how many others have been irreparably harmed in the process?

The other way is to contract it to a tiny number of omniscient insiders who have complete control over the flow of information.

Well stated.

it says to me that facts will never matter. People pick sides and then just keep moving goalposts and switching their story to justify what they want to be true.

Those who want to hang Zimmerman will apparently hang on to any shred of logic, no matter how thin, to justify their desire for a hanging.

Defending muggery?

It seems to be the JFTs that are defending muggery and assault.

Do I think an innocent black person needs to 'yield for questioning' to an armed vigilante?

Well, for one, I do not think answering a few questions is a huge terrible inconvenience. For another, there would be several legal options - telling the questioner to fuck off, for example, would be legal. Answering "it is none of your business" would be as well. Walking away, running away, calling 911 are all legal responses if one is afraid.

Assaulting somebody, is generally not.

To say that "Trayvon RIGHTLY feared for his life" is basically ex post facto.

You assume that Trayvon would have died if he had responded differently, and you have no way of knowing that (nor apparently do you care). You assume he would have been killed if he had responded when asked "what are you doing here?" with "What the fuck are you talking about? My dad lives here two blocks down the street. What am I doing here? I am on my way home you racist fuck."
and then kept walking.

However, I have no way of knowing that either. That's why I say that facts matter. For all I know, that's what Trayvon did and George got pissed off by that and took a swing at him, but then lost the fight that he started.

You seem to give Trayvon a pass for starting a fight. Even if he did start the fight, you don't care. In your eyes, it seems that George lost his own right to life as soon as he called 911 to report a black guy in his neighborhood.

As for the outcome of the trial, I find the media coverage to be interesting. It almost seems to me that hints that Zimmerman is innocent have been dribbling out over the last month in a way that is almost deliberate. Like somebody is manipulating the media (and public opinion) in an attempt to blunt the perhaps inevitable race riots that will happen when Zimmerman gets aquitted. But that would require a benevolent controller of the media.

This case is becoming a trail about Trayvon, not Zimmerman. The victim is being tried, like Fuhrman, the cop at the scene was tried in the OJ case. The media helps in this process.

Let's hope we have a better judge and jury.

I keep placing my confidence in the fact that the DA would not press charges if they didn't feel they could prove this case. This is Florida, site of the Casey Anthony (let's overcharge her and go for death) debacle. I am sure they are being very cautious.

The DA succumbed to political pressure to file charges to defuse racial tension. The trial is being delayed and evidence being trickled to the media to slowly bring about the realization that the DA has no case, so that when the trial ends, the innocent verdict will cause less angst (because it's expected).

So, if you don't mind, I'm going to go with the DA on this one.

Thanks for joining DU to post this though. It's good to have you here.

As we just saw with the black woman being sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot in a domestic violence case.

In the DV case, it was only a warning shot. She didn't even kill the bastard. But Zimmerman walks the night he shot a teenager walking through his neighborhood. Why? Because the teenager was black and Zimmerman isn't.

Breaking someones nose and self defense has to come into play soon.

Stalking has a clear legal definition that Zimmerman's actions certainly didn't meet.

www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Florida108
http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm

Every single unknown black kid in his neighborhood was a criminal for Zimmerman's distorted mind. One can say Burgess made Zimmerman a killer.
Zimmerman was a paranoid vigilante with a loaded gun who wanted to take justice into his own hands.

If it was Zimmerman, his claim to self-defense is toast. If it was Martin, things are much more complicated.

Reason being, if that occurred, Martin was acting in his own perceived self-defense, justified (in his fear) by having been chased and confronted belligerently by Zimmerman.

Whether the jury agrees with that is questionable. (and that's why you're right that it complicates things). But I think it's a strong case.

Because, really, if Zimmerman gets off on the grounds that Martin punched him, thus turning the verbal encounter (that Zimmerman started) physical, then what do we have as a society? A situation where a bully can chase and corner someone until the chasee fights back, then the chaser gets to pull a gun and shoot the chasee? Don't know about you, but to me that seems a pretty scary way to set up society. I guess if some corporation wants to sell a lot of guns, this would be a good thing for them.

about the case. I don't need to know how exactly the confrontation between them went down. Trayvon Martin was just walking down the road minding his own business. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that he was looking for a fight or would have initiated one for any other reason than out of fear.

Zimmerman on the other hand is on record saying "Fucking coons. They always get away" and then chasing after an innocent person with a gun despite being told not to do so by a cop and has a history of being a vigilante nutcase.

Case closed.

in the Florida self defense law it explicitly describes situations where the aggressor has a legal right to use force in self defense - you know damn well Zimmerman's lawyers will tailor their arguments to fit into one of those situations. If they are successful, all that stuff before the confrontation then becomes irrelevant.

That may have scared Martin, but it wouldn't by itself make physically assaulting Zimmerman justifiable self-defense. That much is obvious. Whether Zimmerman approached Martin or vice-versa, how belligerant Zimmerman was when he spoke to Martin, and who threw the first punch are all questions to which we don't have the answer.

It is very relevant. Clearly Zimmerman is morally bankrupt. But can murder be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. All of these factors will way in so I don't see how they are irrelevant. They might be irrelevant to you, they are not irrelevant with respect to the prosecution of Zimmerman.

"I think there are no "unknown facts" about this case that need to come out that would be of any relevance". Zimmerman has every right to a defense. Just because some facts are unknown to us does not mean they are unknown to the prosecution and defense and will play a vital role in the trial.

what you seem to be 100% certain he is guilty of? When and if this fustercluck is finally over, there will be 2 groups of people: a small one whose members never cared either
way from beginning to end, and either a sizable group upset
that Zimmerman was found guilty or 3) another very sizable and
vocal one seething with rage because he wasn't convicted. The
probability of violence and riots is, I am sorry to say, very
high.

How dare you!