Was Zimmerman commiting a crime when he confronted Martin?

[Still a Democrat]

I think this is the hole in his "stand your ground" defense. It's can't be used by someone committing a crime. He profiled, pursued, and confronted Martin after authorities instructed him not to.

[sandnsea]

You can most certainly walk up to anybody on a public street and ask them their name and business. Not illegal in the least. It gets illegal if it becomes threatening.

It's important that now that there has been an arrest, people take a step back and examine real law and real evidence - not the injustice of NO trial at all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

It isn't that it's illegal, it's that FLA law allows people who feel threatened to defend themselves with deadly force in open areas where they have a right to be. Open Area? Check. Right to be there? Check. Did a grown man following him and harass him (ppl can ask questions: demanding them could be taken as a threat)? Check.

Its not that zimmerman did anything illegal,its that the law says his actions if interpreted as a threat mean Martin had the right to defend himself in any way he saw fit

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 01:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  It isn't that it's illegal, it's that FLA law allows people who feel threatened to defend themselves with deadly force in open areas where they have a right to be. Open Area? Check. Right to be there? Check. Did a grown man following him and harass him (ppl can ask questions: demanding them could be taken as a threat)? Check.

Its not that zimmerman did anything illegal,its that the law says his actions if interpreted as a threat mean Martin had the right to defend himself in any way he saw fit

That's exactly right. I can tell you with absolute surety that if someone were pursuing me in that manner, I'd give them one warning to knock it off before I took physical action on my own, if necessary, to stop them from following (harassing) me.

And I would bet no court would convict me.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  It isn't that it's illegal, it's that FLA law allows people who feel threatened to defend themselves with deadly force in open areas where they have a right to be. Open Area? Check. Right to be there? Check. Did a grown man following him and harass him (ppl can ask questions: demanding them could be taken as a threat)? Check.

Its not that zimmerman did anything illegal,its that the law says his actions if interpreted as a threat mean Martin had the right to defend himself in any way he saw fit

I think there's a difference between "I was scared" and "I felt my life was threatened".

In any event, I think the biggest question will be whether the shooting occurred at a location that indicates a Zimmerman caused confrontation - or whether Trayvon actually did double back on Zimmerman and confront him.

Details are important, even if Zimmerman was living out his big man fantasies that day, even if he wasn't completely honest with himself about his hopes to kill a n* some day.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 01:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  In any event, I think the biggest question will be whether the shooting occurred at a location that indicates a Zimmerman caused confrontation - or whether Trayvon actually did double back on Zimmerman and confront him.

This is getting almost surreal.

How much of the facts are alluding you? Trayvon was walking on a public thoroughfare (sidewalk). He was not trapsing through someone's home, or even yard. Bonehead DID confront him, which was heard on the police audio. The audio even revealed he was being told to STOP the confrontation.

Just how far are you going to walk this one back before losing all credibility?

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:51 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  In any event, I think the biggest question will be whether the shooting occurred at a location that indicates a Zimmerman caused confrontation - or whether Trayvon actually did double back on Zimmerman and confront him.

This is getting almost surreal.

How much of the facts are alluding you? Trayvon was walking on a public thoroughfare (sidewalk). He was not trapsing through someone's home, or even yard. Bonehead DID confront him, which was heard on the police audio. The audio even revealed he was being told to STOP the confrontation.

Just how far are you going to walk this one back before losing all credibility?

I'm not walking anything back. I've stated my position. It's time to step back and look at every spec of evidence objectively. He was told "we don't need you to do that", not STOP the confrontation right now. There is a huge difference. I personally need to have every item documented, a timeline, actual witness testimony in court, etc - before I make a final judgment. I don't think I would ever lose credibility with that stand.

And, once again, I am sick of you attacking me personally every time you disagree with my conclusions on a topic. Stop It.

[PoliticalTiger]

(04-15-2012 01:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  It isn't that it's illegal, it's that FLA law allows people who feel threatened to defend themselves with deadly force in open areas where they have a right to be. Open Area? Check. Right to be there? Check. Did a grown man following him and harass him (ppl can ask questions: demanding them could be taken as a threat)? Check.

Its not that zimmerman did anything illegal,its that the law says his actions if interpreted as a threat mean Martin had the right to defend himself in any way he saw fit

I think there's a difference between "I was scared" and "I felt my life was threatened".

In any event, I think the biggest question will be whether the shooting occurred at a location that indicates a Zimmerman caused confrontation - or whether Trayvon actually did double back on Zimmerman and confront him.

Details are important, even if Zimmerman was living out his big man fantasies that day, even if he wasn't completely honest with himself about his hopes to kill a n* some day.

I think it's safe to say Zimmerman caused the confrontation. But for his actions, none of what eventually happened would have happened.

If Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, there would have been no confrontation.

If Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon Martin, there would have been no confrontation.

Zimmerman was the instigator. He was the troublemaker. He was the menace.

While I don't believe Zimmerman following Trayvon was a crime per se, it was what eventually led to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Of course, this insane "stand your ground" law muddles it all up, but common sense tells us that but for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin would be alive and well today.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 02:48 PM)PoliticalTiger Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:25 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  I think there's a difference between "I was scared" and "I felt my life was threatened".

In any event, I think the biggest question will be whether the shooting occurred at a location that indicates a Zimmerman caused confrontation - or whether Trayvon actually did double back on Zimmerman and confront him.

Details are important, even if Zimmerman was living out his big man fantasies that day, even if he wasn't completely honest with himself about his hopes to kill a n* some day.

I think it's safe to say Zimmerman caused the confrontation. But for his actions, none of what eventually happened would have happened.

If Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, there would have been no confrontation.

If Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon Martin, there would have been no confrontation.

Zimmerman was the instigator. He was the troublemaker. He was the menace.

While I don't believe Zimmerman following Trayvon was a crime per se, it was what eventually led to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Of course, this insane "stand your ground" law muddles it all up, but common sense tells us that but for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin would be alive and well today.

Agree with all of that. BUT - if, and that is a big if, he did go back to his car, at what point can one conclude that he had walked away from the confrontation.

All I'm saying is if I was on a jury, I'd be waiting to hear that. I have absolutely no idea whether it even happened. But when people are at the stage of conviction, they've got to at least give that a listen.

There is a difference between hot political rhetoric to move an agenda - and calm legal analysis to come to the right outcome. People on the left and right are both guilty of not knowing the difference.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 07:45 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Agree with all of that. BUT - if, and that is a big if, he did go back to his car, at what point can one conclude that he had walked away from the confrontation.

Since by all accounts so far he started the confrontation, that sort of guts your premise.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-15-2012 07:45 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:48 PM)PoliticalTiger Wrote:  I think it's safe to say Zimmerman caused the confrontation. But for his actions, none of what eventually happened would have happened.

If Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, there would have been no confrontation.

If Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon Martin, there would have been no confrontation.

Zimmerman was the instigator. He was the troublemaker. He was the menace.

While I don't believe Zimmerman following Trayvon was a crime per se, it was what eventually led to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Of course, this insane "stand your ground" law muddles it all up, but common sense tells us that but for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin would be alive and well today.

Agree with all of that. BUT - if, and that is a big if, he did go back to his car, at what point can one conclude that he had walked away from the confrontation.

All I'm saying is if I was on a jury, I'd be waiting to hear that. I have absolutely no idea whether it even happened. But when people are at the stage of conviction, they've got to at least give that a listen.

There is a difference between hot political rhetoric to move an agenda - and calm legal analysis to come to the right outcome. People on the left and right are both guilty of not knowing the difference.

From a purely legal standpoint, it is extremely difficult to convict on the word of one man versus the dead man that he killed. Of course he won't likely be convicted of 2nd degree murder, but it's quite likely he'll be convicted of some form of manslaughter. And even if he isn't, it's already clear to most all of us here that his intent was NOT good ("they always get away"). I'm not sure why you've taken this devil's advocate position to the bitter end, you have to admit that Zimmerman had a predisposition against Trayvon, even though he knew absolutely NOTHING about him other than 1) he was black 2) he had a hoodie on. His prejudices killed Trayvon and for that there is no forgiveness (unless he somehow has a "come to Jesus" moment where he admits he was a paranoid and prejudiced jerk.)

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 09:53 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I'm not sure why you've taken this devil's advocate position to the bitter end

Uh, no, I've taken the Constitutional position, presumption of innocence. I'm shocked that everybody hasn't. We're talking about a trial now, in a real court.

Seriously, what kind of liberal doesn't believe in waiting for the trial and the evidence?

And I'm the one who has to put up with sleezy insinuations, fucking ridiculous.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-16-2012 03:14 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  ...

And I'm the one who has to put up with sleezy insinuations, fucking ridiculous.

Must be tough being the only pure liberal here - the rest of us are apparently just bunch of wild-eyed "mob mentality" types.

Or... perhaps we listened to the single most incriminating piece of evidence - the 911 call where it is clear that Zimmerman was loaded for bear that night and wasn't going to quit until he didn't "let one get away".

TINS Wrote:...you have to admit that Zimmerman had a predisposition against Trayvon, even though he knew absolutely NOTHING about him other than 1) he was black 2) he had a hoodie on. His prejudices killed Trayvon and for that there is no forgiveness (unless he somehow has a "come to Jesus" moment where he admits he was a paranoid and prejudiced jerk.)

[sandnsea]

(04-16-2012 07:46 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Or... perhaps we listened to the single most incriminating piece of evidence - the 911 call where it is clear that Zimmerman was loaded for bear that night and wasn't going to quit until he didn't "let one get away".

His claim is that he went back to his car after all of that happened. What if he did? What if there's evidence that the shooting took place nearer to the car, than out on the sidewalk where an earlier confrontation had taken place?

If you've got a minute by minute, and a map, let me know. I didn't think we had that much info from the prosecutor yet. People keep saying there are no other witnesses, but there is another 911 call. What location did that come from, in comparison to the car?

This isn't devil's advocate. These are questions anybody should be asking at this point.

Sure he set the whole thing into action, but if he tried to walk away - then you've got a different scenario on your hands.

[KonaKane]

(04-16-2012 12:13 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Sure he set the whole thing into action, but if he tried to walk away - then you've got a different scenario on your hands.

If you "set the whole thing in motion" here, legally, is what you set yourself up for:

A loss of any real SYG argument.

Major damage to any defense against lesser homicide charges.

The crux of the biscuit, as Zappa would say, is that Zimmerman provoked this entire thing. That will not magically disappear in trial.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-16-2012 12:13 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 07:46 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Or... perhaps we listened to the single most incriminating piece of evidence - the 911 call where it is clear that Zimmerman was loaded for bear that night and wasn't going to quit until he didn't "let one get away".

His claim is that he went back to his car after all of that happened. What if he did? What if there's evidence that the shooting took place nearer to the car, than out on the sidewalk where an earlier confrontation had taken place?

If you've got a minute by minute, and a map, let me know. I didn't think we had that much info from the prosecutor yet. People keep saying there are no other witnesses, but there is another 911 call. What location did that come from, in comparison to the car?

This isn't devil's advocate. These are questions anybody should be asking at this point.

Sure he set the whole thing into action, but if he tried to walk away - then you've got a different scenario on your hands.

Did you see the crime scene walk-through on MSNBC? There are also maps showing paths taken and where Zimmerman left his car and how far he was from it etc. etc.

If you do a search you can find lots of conservative sites showing how Trayvon must have doubled back and attacked Zimmerman - funny how they feel compelled to defend the non-black person.

[sandnsea]

(04-16-2012 12:28 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Did you see the crime scene walk-through on MSNBC? There are also maps showing paths taken and where Zimmerman left his car and how far he was from it etc. etc.

If you do a search you can find lots of conservative sites showing how Trayvon must have doubled back and attacked Zimmerman - funny how they feel compelled to defend the non-black person.

Can you post a link. No, I did not see the maps. Helloooo???? I wouldn't have asked if there were any if I'd seen them.

And let me see, fuck you and your goddamn conservative attack again. When you are on a jury - you have to listen to ALL of the case. Picking and choosing is the exact reason justice is so difficult to come by.

Zimmerman said he left and went back to his car. You can't just disregard that if you're on a jury. If you have evidence that he didn't - put it out there.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-16-2012 12:36 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:28 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Did you see the crime scene walk-through on MSNBC? There are also maps showing paths taken and where Zimmerman left his car and how far he was from it etc. etc.

If you do a search you can find lots of conservative sites showing how Trayvon must have doubled back and attacked Zimmerman - funny how they feel compelled to defend the non-black person.

Can you post a link. No, I did not see the maps. Helloooo???? I wouldn't have asked if there were any if I'd seen them.

And let me see, fuck you and your goddamn conservative attack again. When you are on a jury - you have to listen to ALL of the case. Picking and choosing is the exact reason justice is so difficult to come by.

Zimmerman said he left and went back to his car. You can't just disregard that if you're on a jury. If you have evidence that he didn't - put it out there.

You seem to assume a lot. Nobody here has said you're a closet conservative or Republican that I've seen (and even if that's not what you meant above, you've said similar in other posts in past 2 days), and my frustration at finding only noted right-wing sites doing a tilted play-by-play (and also using the "code words") was disgusting to me. Please stop making this about you or implying that there's some personal dig here when this is strictly a heated discussion on a controversial topic. Search for yourself - not sure how you could have missed all the details as there was nothing else on cable news or the internet for nearly an entire week or two.

[sandnsea]

(04-16-2012 12:42 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  You seem to assume a lot. Nobody here has said you're a closet conservative or Republican that I've seen (and even if that's not what you meant above, you've said similar in other posts in past 2 days),

Oh bullshit. It's said to me by you and Kona all the damn time. And *you* want to cry about "fuck you" when you're impugning my character, my very being??? Really???

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-16-2012 01:29 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:42 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  You seem to assume a lot. Nobody here has said you're a closet conservative or Republican that I've seen (and even if that's not what you meant above, you've said similar in other posts in past 2 days),

Oh bullshit. It's said to me by you and Kona all the damn time. And *you* want to cry about "fuck you" when you're impugning my character, my very being??? Really???

Oh, come on.

[KonaKane]

(04-16-2012 12:36 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Zimmerman said he left and went back to his car. You can't just disregard that if you're on a jury. If you have evidence that he didn't - put it out there.

Zimmerman said? Judging from his words and antics so far, I think just about anything he "says" lacks any sort of credibility.

[jaxx]

(04-16-2012 12:36 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:28 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Did you see the crime scene walk-through on MSNBC? There are also maps showing paths taken and where Zimmerman left his car and how far he was from it etc. etc.

If you do a search you can find lots of conservative sites showing how Trayvon must have doubled back and attacked Zimmerman - funny how they feel compelled to defend the non-black person.

Can you post a link. No, I did not see the maps. Helloooo???? I wouldn't have asked if there were any if I'd seen them.

And let me see, fuck you and your goddamn conservative attack again. When you are on a jury - you have to listen to ALL of the case. Picking and choosing is the exact reason justice is so difficult to come by.

Zimmerman said he left and went back to his car. You can't just disregard that if you're on a jury. If you have evidence that he didn't - put it out there.

If you go to In The News and read the many threads concerning the information that is out there you will find lots of video and lots of articles. The FBI walked the route, talked to the witnesses, and show Trayvon was killed a few apartments from where he was staying. It's a sidewalk, not a road for a car.

I doubt any of us will be on the jury, unless someone in FL would be from here. But we all have opinions and to me Zimmerman looks to be wrong in carrying a gun and in killing an unarmed kid. The conservatives have almost all stood for Zimmerman and the gun law.

[suzie]

(04-15-2012 09:53 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  [quote='sandnsea' pid='91127' dateline='1334540746']

From a purely legal standpoint, it is extremely difficult to convict on the word of one man versus the dead man that he killed. Of course he won't likely be convicted of 2nd degree murder, but it's quite likely he'll be convicted of some form of manslaughter. And even if he isn't, it's already clear to most all of us here that his intent was NOT good ("they always get away"). I'm not sure why you've taken this devil's advocate position to the bitter end, you have to admit that Zimmerman had a predisposition against Trayvon, even though he knew absolutely NOTHING about him other than 1) he was black 2) he had a hoodie on. His prejudices killed Trayvon and for that there is no forgiveness (unless he somehow has a "come to Jesus" moment where he admits he was a paranoid and prejudiced jerk.)

It may be likely that Zimmerman will offer a plea to something like manslaughter. His new attorney is sort of sounding that way.

The prosecutor brought in her own experienced investigators--that presumably she trusts--to go over the investigation. She seem to be going with the proximate cause--Zimmerman provoked a confrontation.

Kona's thought that "I would have confronted someone following me" and punched the guy in the nose, I think that's exactly how jurors will think, no matter what they're instructed.

If Zimmerman can't take the stand, then what can he do but plead out?

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-16-2012 07:50 AM)suzie Wrote:  It may be likely that Zimmerman will offer a plea to something like manslaughter. His new attorney is sort of sounding that way.

The prosecutor brought in her own experienced investigators--that presumably she trusts--to go over the investigation. She seem to be going with the proximate cause--Zimmerman provoked a confrontation.

Kona's thought that "I would have confronted someone following me" and punched the guy in the nose, I think that's exactly how jurors will think, no matter what they're instructed.

If Zimmerman can't take the stand, then what can he do but plead out?

I agree - it would behoove Zimmerman to plead out in order to 1) prevent a show trial - apparently FL allows cameras to film the entire proceedings 2) he can possibly get a lesser sentence (by pleading to a lower manslaughter charge.)

[PoliticalTiger]

(04-15-2012 07:45 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:48 PM)PoliticalTiger Wrote:  I think it's safe to say Zimmerman caused the confrontation. But for his actions, none of what eventually happened would have happened.

If Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, there would have been no confrontation.

If Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon Martin, there would have been no confrontation.

Zimmerman was the instigator. He was the troublemaker. He was the menace.

While I don't believe Zimmerman following Trayvon was a crime per se, it was what eventually led to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Of course, this insane "stand your ground" law muddles it all up, but common sense tells us that but for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin would be alive and well today.

Agree with all of that. BUT - if, and that is a big if, he did go back to his car, at what point can one conclude that he had walked away from the confrontation.

All I'm saying is if I was on a jury, I'd be waiting to hear that. I have absolutely no idea whether it even happened. But when people are at the stage of conviction, they've got to at least give that a listen.

There is a difference between hot political rhetoric to move an agenda - and calm legal analysis to come to the right outcome. People on the left and right are both guilty of not knowing the difference.

I think the biggest problem the jury is going to have, assuming this goes to trial, is determining what exactly happened in those last few minutes before that gun was fired. Sans any direct eyewitnesses, there's only one person alive who knows exactly what happened.

I'm sure the prosecution will argue Zimmerman provoked the "incident," and will use the 911 tapes, whatever eye/ear-witnesses they have, forensics, etc.

I'm sure the defense will try to paint Zimmerman as someone who was trying to defend himself. I think that's going to be an uphill battle for the defense unless they put Zimmerman on the stand, which I'm sure they don't want to do.

Of course, we are all just speculating as to what happened based on what we have heard in the media. I'd like to know what the forensics and other evidence shows - was Trayvon shot point blank, while on the ground or while standing up? Did Zimmerman actually suffer a broken nose and severe injuries to his head as his family claims? Who was yelling for help? Lot's of unanswered questions that may remain unanswered.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 09:56 PM)PoliticalTiger Wrote:  Of course, we are all just speculating as to what happened based on what we have heard in the media. I'd like to know what the forensics and other evidence shows -

Seems reasonable to me. I'd think it would be reasonable to anyone calling themselves a liberal. That's what it's all about.

[Velleity]

You're hitting on the concept of proximate cause.

You can't set in motion a series of events that will allow you to kill someone. I haven't researched this but I did hear a Florida lawyer say that.

We will see.

[Treestar]

It's possible. What if there is some Florida statute, even a misdemeanor, which Zimmerman might have been violating? It might be unlawful to call 911 and then not follow their instructions. Unfortunately Trayvon can't testify as to what Zimmerman might have been doing that constitution Menacing or Terroristic Threatening, which might have been against Florida law.

Another reason the SYG law outside the home is insane. The survivor may be the only witness.

It would be fascinating in cases where both parties survived and to hear each side's testimony on the situation.