The Zimmerman Trial

[Revoltingest]

Because Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch patrol, he should not have pursued Martin, he should not have confronted Martin, and there should not have been any possible/alleged confrontation and fight that lead to the fatal shooting. Zimmerman was not in a position to invoke the stand-your-ground law, and the proper thing would have been to notify the police of any suspicious people or situations. Vigilante justice is only cool in the movies. Not that the police are necessarily any better, but it is clear that Zimmerman's handling of the incident lead to the death of an unarmed innocent.

No doubt Zimmerman's conduct lead to Martin's death. But the question is exactly what Zimmerman is guilty of. Without actual film footage, we don't know that Martin didn't turn on Zimmerman, & pursue him, perhaps because he believed Zimmerman was also a threat. This could explain Martin's attacking Zimmerman just before he was shot. Unfortunately (or fortunately), in our legal system, we cannot convict based upon the rough likelihood of what happened. If we could, the jury I served on would've convicted the accused even though there was scant evidence. But the women on the jury found him scary enuf that they wanted to put him away because he might've done it. I badgered them into following the instructions we were given, ie, do not convict if there's reasonable doubt. The system is lousy, but it's better than we as a people are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No doubt Zimmerman's conduct lead to Martin's death. But the question is exactly what Zimmerman is guilty of. Without actual film footage, we don't know that Martin didn't turn on Zimmerman, & pursue him, perhaps because he believed Zimmerman was also a threat. This could explain Martin's attacking Zimmerman just before he was shot. Unfortunately (or fortunately), in our legal system, we cannot convict based upon the rough likelihood of what happened. If we could, the jury I served on would've convicted the accused even though there was scant evidence. But the women on the jury found him scary enuf that they wanted to put him away because he might've done it. I badgered them into following the instructions we were given, ie, do not convict if there's reasonable doubt. The system is lousy, but it's better than we as a people are.

He is guilty of nothing less than manslaughter. He handled the situation poorly, he failed to notify the police, and because he chose to confront Martin, regardless of who did what, the decision to confront Martin at all is why he is dead. Maybe Martin was the aggressor once confronted by Zimmerman, but as neighborhood watch Zimmerman should not have approached Martin, but rather should have notified the police if he was that concerned.

 

[Revoltingest]

He is guilty of no less than manslaughter. He handled the situation poorly, he failed to notify the police, and because he chose to confront Martin, regardless of who did what, the decision to confront Martin at all is why he is dead. Maybe Martin was the aggressor once confronted by Zimmerman, but as neighborhood watch Zimmerman should not have approached Martin, but rather should have notified the police if he was that concerned.

It's a legally complicated issue. But even manslaughter won't stick if there's a
possibility that Martin turned on Zimmerman. We cannot convict on what is likely.

 

[Titanic]

It's a legally complicated issue. But even manslaughter won't stick if there's a
possibility that Martin turned on Zimmerman. We cannot convict on what is likely.

Involuntary Manslaughter perhaps? instead of voluntary Manslaughter?

 

[freethinker44]

Involuntary Manslaughter perhaps? instead of voluntary Manslaughter?

It can't be involuntary. He would have to prove that he didn't intend to kill him or cause serious bodily harm when he shot him in the chest. For involuntary manslaughter, Zimmerman would have to have been negligent or reckless with maliciousness. I think it's safe to say Martin didn't die from Zimmermans negligence, and he wasn't reckless with his gun, he pulled it out, aimed it (or pointed it at Martin), and pulled the trigger.

So it's either voluntary manslaughter or self-defence under stand-your-ground laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

So it's either voluntary manslaughter or self-defence under stand-your-ground laws.

Why do you say it is about Stand-your-ground-laws rather than self-defense laws?
Moreover, Stand-your-ground laws don't vacate a person's duty of avoidance under FL law,
which strikes me as Zimmerman's primary vulnerability. Has this come up in the trial?
Did Zimmerman have an opportunity to flee after Martin set upon him?

 

[Revoltingest]

Involuntary Manslaughter perhaps? instead of voluntary Manslaughter?

I don't know enuf to say with any confidence.
Certainly though, involuntary manslaughter is where he could be convicted, since he
could've assumed more authority than was appropriate for his position & skill level.
One would likely have to watch the entire trial to suss that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well Martin was not harmed so It seems that it should be manslaughter. He could have just shot him somewhere else if he really wanted to.

Martin wasn't harmed? Please explain.
It's reasonable to expect that if Zimmerman was having his head banged into the ground by an assailant on top of him (as appears to be the case), then he'd be panicky, & have difficulty drawing & aiming his gun. He would be reacting upon reflexes, so he'd naturally shoot at center of mass (which we're all trained to do), which he did.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It can't be involuntary. He would have to prove that he didn't intend to kill him or cause serious bodily harm when he shot him in the chest. For involuntary manslaughter, Zimmerman would have to have been negligent or reckless with maliciousness. I think it's safe to say Martin didn't die from Zimmermans negligence, and he wasn't reckless with his gun, he pulled it out, aimed it (or pointed it at Martin), and pulled the trigger.

So it's either voluntary manslaughter or self-defence under stand-your-ground laws.

Or a third option. Self defense having nothing to do with the stand your ground laws.

Stand your ground states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

Martin having been on top of Zimmerman, slamming his head into the sidewalk, the option to retreat wasn't there at all. Zimmerman was in a kill or be killed situation, and he defended himself.

 

[freethinker44]

Why do you say it is about Stand-your-ground-laws rather than self-defense laws?
Moreover, Stand-your-ground laws don't vacate a person's duty of avoidance under FL law,
which strikes me as Zimmerman's primary vulnerability. Has this come up in the trial?
Did Zimmerman have an opportunity to flee after Martin set upon him?

Self defense by itself would not justify killing someone in this situation. If it were merely an issue of him defending himself, he could have done that by walking or running away. This is why stand-your-ground laws were created, so people can claim self defense even though they could have simply ran away and avoided the incident altogether. At least that's how I understand it to be, I'm no lawyer so I could be using the wrong terminology. If so I apologize.

 

[Titanic]

Martin wasn't harmed? Please explain.
It's reasonable to expect that if Zimmerman was having his head banged into the ground by an assailant on top of him (as appears to be the case), then he'd be panicky, & have difficulty drawing & aiming his gun. He would be reacting upon reflexes, so he'd naturally shoot at center of mass (which we're all trained to do), which he did.

I had a mispell. I meant to put armed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had a mispell. I meant to put armed.

That makes much more sense!

 

[Revoltingest]

Self defense by itself would not justify killing someone in this situation. If it were merely an issue of him defending himself, he could have done that by walking or running away. This is why stand-your-ground laws were created, so people can claim self defense even though they could have simply ran away and avoided the incident altogether.

This is a little off. There is still a duty of avoidance.
See.....
The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense -- Utah CCW Carry
Moreover, we still don't know who pursued whom in the final seconds leading up to Martin being on top
of Zimmerman & beating him. That would have great bearing on what crime Zimmerman is guilty of.

 

[Titanic]

That makes much more sense!

Yeah. I do not know a whole lot about this case. I know more about serial killers when it comes to crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. I do not know a whole lot about this case. I know more about serial killers when it comes to crime.

I'm an expert on serial killers.
(I watched Silence Of The Lambs & Dexter.)

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why do you say it is about Stand-your-ground-laws rather than self-defense laws?
Moreover, Stand-your-ground laws don't vacate a person's duty of avoidance under FL law,
which strikes me as Zimmerman's primary vulnerability. Has this come up in the trial?
Did Zimmerman have an opportunity to flee after Martin set upon him?

I realize that it's only one side of the story... but IF it's true, then it says a lot.

According to Zimmerman's reenactment, after the dispatch told him he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when Martin confronted Zimmerman, saying "What is your problem?" before punching Zimmerman in the nose (breaking his nose), and proceeding to get on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk.


Maybe Zimmerman was wrong to be suspicious in the first place. But if all he was was suspicious, the cops would have arrived, and everyone would have lived... but once Martin reacted violently when he could have just walked away, that changed everything.

 

[Titanic]

I'm an expert on serial killers.
(I watched Silence Of The Lambs & Dexter.)

I watched Silence of the Lambs as well. Not a big fan of Dexter though. I studied guys like Ted Bundy and the Zodiac killer during my teens. My dad got me started on them.

 

[freethinker44]

This is a little off. There is still a duty of avoidance.
See.....
The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense -- Utah CCW Carry

That's why I was saying self defense under stand your ground laws, because those laws take away the duty to retreat to a certain degree. If anything is going to save Zimmerman, it is going to be the stand your ground laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

I realize that it's only one side of the story... but IF it's true, then it says a lot.

According to Zimmerman's reenactment, after the dispatch told him he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman was heading back to his truck when Martin confronted Zimmerman, saying "What is your problem?" before punching Zimmerman in the nose (breaking his nose), and proceeding to get on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk.


Maybe Zimmerman was wrong to be suspicious in the first place. But if all he was was suspicious, the cops would have arrived, and everyone would have lived... but once Martin reacted violently when he could have just walked away, that changed everything.

Ah, thanx....I see I've missed some useful testimony.
My continuing ignorance is why I'm reluctant to judge.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We don't have the right to turn around and ask the guy what his problem is?

We certainly do have that right. What we don't have the right to do is punch him in the nose, get on top of him, and slam his head into the sidewalk.

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman is guilty. He brought a gun to fist-fist, which he caused, and then used it when he couldn't beat up some punk kid.

See how big and bad you are against some punk kid when that punk kid is slamming your head into the sidewalk after he just broke your nose.

If you are the initiator, instigator, or cause of the confrontation or fight, the stand-your-ground laws should not apply. You don't get to provoke a fight with someone and kill them because you were "standing you ground", even if you feel your life is in danger. At a minimum Zimmerman is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. It shouldn't be self defense if you kill someone because you are losing a fight you provoked.

I don't think Zimmerman provoked the fight. I don't believe he threw the first punch. I think he was waiting for the police to arrive, and was headed back to his truck before Martin confronted him.