George Zimmerman: Weak Prosecution

[Johan]

If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

And what if Zimmerman provoked that attack? What then? He knew he had a loaded gun to protect himself with if things got out of hand. He also knew he had the stand your ground law on his side if he needed to use that gun. So is he still innocent if he provoked the kid into attacking him in that situation?

[wolf39us]

If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

And what if Zimmerman provoked that attack? What then? He knew he had a loaded gun to protect himself with if things got out of hand. He also knew he had the stand your ground law on his side if he needed to use that gun. So is he still innocent if he provoked the kid into attacking him in that situation?

Provoked in what way?  Why would anyone call the police asking for help and then basically provoke an attack?  Also, provoke is incredibly subjective... what you think of "provoke" could be VASTLY different than someone else's definition.

If you mean to say that to follow = provoke, then yes he is innocent.  What kind of "provoke" are we talking about here?

[Johan]

What kind of "provoke" are we talking about here?

I dunno. Pick one. I'm not asking for what's plausible or for what might have happened here. I'm asking if one person has intent to make a second person feel threatened and then makes that second person feel threatened such that they attack for fear of their own well being, is that first person then within the letter of the law to use lethal force in self defense and still be found innocent? That is all I'm asking here. Forget Martin. Forget Zimmerman. We're talking about two hypothetical people who don't exist.

The first person doesn't throw a punch. But he makes the second person feel that his life in danger if action is not taken immediately. That second person could run. But suppose he feels he would not be able to outrun the first person. So the second person feels backed into a corner where his only option is to try to get the first punch in and keep getting punches in until the first person no longer poses a threat. Its either attack and try to subdue the first person or die as far as the second person knows. And he believes this to be true because the first person has made him believe it to be true.

In that scenario, is the first person then justified legally speaking, to use lethal force on the second in self defense? Keep in mind the second person never would have attacked the first if the first had not made the second feel threatened. Keep in mind, the first did not accidentally make the second person feel threatened. It was his intent to make the second person feel threatened.

Is it still ok to use lethal force against the second person in the scenario? Not Martin, not Zimmerman. Hypothetical people who don't exist.

[Colanth]

the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.

Legal reference, please.

To the fact that the ADA can call Zimmerman's failure to break off "stalking"?  "In court" includes things other than de jure.

The dispatcher is not a trained police officer

I don't know how the particular jurisdiction works, so I can't address that comment.  In some jurisdictions, dispatchers are experienced law enforcement officers.  In some they're barely trained civilians.  But even barely trained is more training than Zimmerman had, a point the ADA can make in court.

nor are they on the scene or know everything that is going on

"Don't try to act like a cop" doesn't require being on scene, it's common sense to anyone who's trained.  And that's my problem with stand your ground laws - you should report what you see, not try to take action.  Even off-duty police officers sometimes just call it in and wait in the shadows for backup.  You act if someone's safety is in immediate danger, you don't act if there's a suspicious person walking down the street.  Even an on-duty cop in uniform wouldn't do more than ask for identification, to let the person know that their identity is now known.

Combine this with the fact that he was told something to the effect "you don't need to follow him"

Was he?  Or was he told to stop following him?  I didn't listen to the transcripts.

To point, the dispatcher did NOT say "stop following him immediately".

"We have the location, you don't need to follow him" is just as good.  (It's what I've said more than once, and it's understood to mean "stop following him".)

So, even if there was a legal obligation to obey the instructions of a 911 dispatcher (which there is not, AFAIK), he wasn't issued a direct instruction. Based on these two points, the entire 911 operator thing is a complete red herring and is not relevant to the assessment of guilt or innocence in this case.

Due to stand your ground, there was no legal obligation for Zimmerman to not follow Martin, even if his following posed a threat to Martin (in Martin's mind, which is the only one that matters here).  If Martin felt threatened he was acting in self-defense, blowing Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.  (Of course we can never know, thanks to Zimmerman taking lethal action in response to non-lethal action - which is almost always wrong.)

PS: I am also opposed to the "scatter-shooting" approach that the prosecution used in this case. Child abuse? Really? How about jaywalking and double-parking? This isn't about justice, it's about appeasing the black community.

No, it's about getting a guilty verdict.  As long as it's not illegal, inadmissible or prejudicial, the ADA can use it.  Zimmerman wet the bed when he was 7?  If the ADA could show a connection between that and murder, he's free to bring it up.  Just as the defense is free to bring up the fact that the ADA is prejudiced against Hispanics with German surnames, if they can find evidence to back up the claim.  Or that some kid named Zimmerman bullied the ADA when he was a kid.  It's all fair game.  That's how the legal system works in the US.

[Colanth]

I disagree

Zimmerman has a constitutional right to bear arms

And the responsibility to not use them illegally.

Zimmerman had a right to protect himself from great bodily injury/death

Not if he caused the situation that endangered his life.

Zimmerman was not committing any crime by following Trayvon

That's what the trial is supposed to determine.

Trayvon did NOT have a right to assault someone except to defend himself

And, if in HIS mind, Zimmerman posed an immediate threat, that's exactly what he did.

If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin

Have you ever been a black male teen-ager in the south?  There's more than enough precedent for a black male teen-ager in the south to consider that a white male adult following him at night is an immediate threat to his life.

Without evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon initally and with ill-will/intention I would say that the man is innocent.

The principle of "the reasonable man" applies here.  Would a reasonable male black teen-ager  in this situation have seen Zimmerman as an immediate threat?  If yes, then Zimmerman is guilty of at least provoking an attack (which would make the death manslaughter).  If not it's death by misadventure (the deceased did something stupid that led to his death).

Furthermore, do you think that fat ass can outrun the lean, muscular 17 year old?  I think NOT :-)

He didn't have to, only his bullet did.

[Colanth]

Why would anyone call the police asking for help and then basically provoke an attack?

To set himself up as a victim, for when he shot the person he was following.

Also, provoke is incredibly subjective

And only the mind of the 'provokee' matters.  If Martin reasonably thought he was in danger, he had the right to defend himself.  The fact (if it actually is a fact) that Zimmerman didn't intend to provoke or appear to be a threat is irrelevant.  (And asserting it in court would be incompetent without a recording of Martin's thoughts.)

[Nonsensei]

To set himself up as a victim, for when he shot the person he was following.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

What there is evidence of is a struggle. Forensic experts in the trial determined that the weapon was about 4 millimeters from Martin's chest when it was discharged. Further, the shell casing from that shot was not ejected. The casing ejection is an automatic function of a magazine fed pistol. If it was not automatically ejected that means someone was holding the slide. Since there is no reason at all for Zimmerman to be holding the slide, that leaves Martin. If Martin was holding the slide then that strongly indicates a struggle for the gun. If there was a struggle for the gun then it is exceedingly likely that Martin took Zimmerman by surprise, and was the initiator of physical violence.

The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is. I think many people generally agree with this rather basic philosophy but in the case of some posters on this forum there is a strong desire to ignore it. Thats why many of the posts Ive seen here talk about whether or not Martin felt threatened. Right of the bat I would like to say that on a purely evidence level there is nothing to prove this suggestion.

The idea that Martin reacted to a perceived threat by attacking Zimmerman is an assumption.

I can understand feeling uneasy with someone who is following you down the street at night. That much I can easily understand. But Martin's reaction is completely contrary to sensibility. If you are afraid of someone who is following you, you try to get away from them. Initiating a physical altercation with someone who makes you feel like you are in danger makes no sense unless you literally have no other choice. Martin is a 17 year old. There's no way he can't simply run away from the older, heavier Zimmerman and lose him in a matter of seconds. And yet he decides that jumping him is the best course of action? Why?

Many people have suggested that Zimmerman is at fault because if he hadn't decided to follow Martin then none of this would have happened. In the same vein, I suggest that if Martin hadn't decided to attack Zimmerman, a move that I simply do not understand, then Martin would still be alive today.

I can only presume that Martin had no idea that Zimmerman had a weapon, an assumption reinforced by the fact that Zimmerman was essentially required to carry it concealed. Its the only way I can make sense of his decision to attack Zimmerman. However, if he didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, then the idea that Martin felt threatened by him is undercut.

I think it is very hard to justify any guilty verdict under these circumstances. The series of events cannot even be established with a certainty, and yet there are people chomping at the bit to see him in prison for the rest of his life. The idea that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is absurd to my mind. The evidence of premeditation is flimsy. The argument that Zimmerman is somehow guilty for following him down a public street is a terrifying concept, as it implies guilt can be applied for an action that was not in fact illegal. More problematically it implies that people are responsible for being assaulted if the perception of the assaulter is that they were being followed. This opens up a legal pandora's box wherein guilt is determined by the perpetrator and the victim is forced to prove their innocence.

[Shiranu]

The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

[Nonsensei]

The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

I don't know if this has occurred to you, but from a legal standpoint there is literally no difference between suggesting that Zimmerman is the instigator for following Martin down a public street and suggesting Martin is the instigator for being in that neighborhood. Neither act is illegal. The "situation" didn't exist until someone broke the law. Until Martin attacked Zimmerman there were countless ways an altercation could have been avoided. Instead of choosing one of them he chose to do the one thing that would escalate this (until that point) rather boring scenario into something deadly.

[Seabear]

The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

People have the right to talk to other people without it escalating into violence. Just because I walk up and initiate a conversation with you doesn't give you the right to beat my ass, regardless of how much you dislike my words. And just because I would not have gotten beat up had I never talked to you, that doesn't mean it's all my fault.

Furthermore - and this will no doubt be an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe it - if Martin had been 30yo white guy who got shot while beating the hell out of the neighborhood watch captain, this shit would have never even made the fucking news. But since he was a 17yo black kid, everyone is in a fucking race to crucify Zimmer in order to prove that they are more racially sensitive than everyone else. All this in spite of the fact, that by all available evidence, Martin was the one who assaulted Zimmerman.

It's fucking bullshit. The prosecution knows it's bullshit, which is why they tried to shotgun the charges the jury could consider. They know they can't prove their fucking case, but that doesn't matter - they need to convict Zimmerman of SOMETHING to satisfy the court of public opinion. They'd rather sacrifice Zimmerman rather than risk blacks rioting in the streets.

[Johan]

[
I can understand feeling uneasy with someone who is following you down the street at night. That much I can easily understand. But Martin's reaction is completely contrary to sensibility. If you are afraid of someone who is following you, you try to get away from them. Initiating a physical altercation with someone who makes you feel like you are in danger makes no sense unless you literally have no other choice. Martin is a 17 year old. There's no way he can't simply run away from the older, heavier Zimmerman and lose him in a matter of seconds. And yet he decides that jumping him is the best course of action? Why?

Zimmerman had a vehicle. Pretty tough to out run a car on foot. Plus, Florida has a stand your ground law precisely so you don't have to run away when someone is presenting a threat to your safety.

[Jmpty]

I just love how some people are saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman as if it were a fact. I guess they were there and saw the whole thing.

[PopeyesPappy]

Not guilty

[stromboli]

Zimmerman found not guilty.

[MilitantAtheist]

It's not surprising but I'm still disappointed.

Let us hope that some form of justice is served in a civil court case.