Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

Page 112 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
As a premise I completely disagree with the law as written.

For the sake of my question using the law as applied there is enough evidence to stipulate T feared for his life before Z. Why didn't T have the right to use deadly force in self defense vs Z? Which means T could strike Z as many times as it takes to render him at least unconscious.

Also if Z was that close to T (1-3 feet if fighting)why couldn't he shoot him in the leg?

The thing about deadly force, as I said, is that with a gun it's such a blunt instrument that it doesn't take sustained malice to injure someone. You want to protect yourself and all you have is a gun. You shoot and it's just too bad for the other guy. Your malice is momentary.

To incapacitate someone with your fists truly does take sustained malice.

If T was on top of Z, then I"d assume that his legs were not visible, just his upper body.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
The thing about deadly force, as I said, is that with a gun it's such a blunt instrument that it doesn't take sustained malice to injure someone. You want to protect yourself and all you have is a gun. You shoot and it's just too bad for the other guy. Your malice is momentary.

To incapacitate someone with your fists truly does take sustained malice.

If T was on top of Z, then I"d assume that his legs were not visible, just his upper body.

The level of malice is the same. We are quibbling over the time to execute.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Why didn't the police take blood from Z at the scene?? Coverup?

Don't you think if he was in fact drunk or under the influence of drugs that it wouldn't be noticed by the officers on the scene and at the police station? Zimmerman was initially taken into custody, taken to the police station, and then released. One would think they could smell alcohol on his breath and/or notice a staggering gait when he walked.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The level of malice is the same. We are quibbling over the time to execute.

It is a comparison of apples to oranges. If one punch from T had killed Z, then that is justifiable. I believe. the malice is momentary and in self-defense.

And it is possible for one punch to kill a guy.

What is not permissible is Z being on the ground and T continuing to pound him.

hypothetically speaking, let's pretend that Z had managed to shoot T in the arm or the leg.

After this was done, he would have absolutely no right to shoot T again, since T would have been incapacitated.

Once Z was on the ground, T had ample opportunity to flee I believe. I don't really blame him. He was scared. He probably wanted to prevent Z from chasing him again. But that still allowed Z to plausibly claim self-defense. Especially since Z was screaming which I take to be an intent to retreat.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Looks like the 911 tapes are out and they clearly tell the shooter to stay in his car.

There's a video with Anderson Cooper and the guy he's talking with said they didn't even run a background check on the shooter or anything... surely they would have if the shooter was black.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Don't you think if he was in fact drunk or under the influence of drugs that it wouldn't be noticed by the officers on the scene and at the police station? Zimmerman was initially taken into custody, taken to the police station, and then released. One would think they could smell alcohol on his breath and/or notice a staggering gait when he walked.

To me that assumes they were interested in investigating this as a crime rather than clearing him. It is by no means clear they ever took this investigation seriously. I have no basis to presume he was intoxicated, but under the circumstances it seems to me it would have been wise to check. On the other hand, it would be of only fairly slight relevance in a prosecution if he had been drunk anyway (though it might well be relevant in a civil case).
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
As a premise I completely disagree with the law as written.

For the sake of my question using the law as applied there is enough evidence to stipulate T feared for his life before Z. Why didn't T have the right to use deadly force in self defense vs Z? Which means T could strike Z as many times as it takes to render him at least unconscious.

Also if Z was that close to T (1-3 feet if fighting)why couldn't he shoot him in the leg?

I'm sure many including myself disagree with the law as written. However, it's unfair to the police and prosecutors to claim they are corrupt when they're applying the law as it's written. They have no choice but to follow the law regardless of whether they feel the law is fair or not.

As for trying to shoot him in the leg, don't you think that there would be high probability of hurting himself?
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
Don't you think if he was in fact drunk or under the influence of drugs that it wouldn't be noticed by the officers on the scene and at the police station? Zimmerman was initially taken into custody, taken to the police station, and then released. One would think they could smell alcohol on his breath and/or notice a staggering gait when he walked.

Importantly, he was held at gunpoint when police arrived.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Don't you think if he was in fact drunk or under the influence of drugs that it wouldn't be noticed by the officers on the scene and at the police station? Zimmerman was initially taken into custody, taken to the police station, and then released. One would think they could smell alcohol on his breath and/or notice a staggering gait when he walked.

Not sure if serious. It's standard procedure. Based on details so far, the Sanford Police did not follow a number of standard procedures.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Don't you think if he was in fact drunk or under the influence of drugs that it wouldn't be noticed by the officers on the scene and at the police station? Zimmerman was initially taken into custody, taken to the police station, and then released. One would think they could smell alcohol on his breath and/or notice a staggering gait when he walked.

I would think at the scene of a homocide that would be SOP
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
I'm sure many including myself disagree with the law as written. However, it's unfair to the police and prosecutors to claim they are corrupt when they're applying the law as it's written. They have no choice but to follow the law regardless of whether they feel the law is fair or not.

As for trying to shoot him in the leg, don't you think that there would be high probability of hurting himself?

The police lied about the contents of the 911 tapes before their release. That in itself is enough to assume corruption.
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
The difference between a gun and fists is sustained malice.

Punching someone for 45 seconds after he is on the ground is no longer self-defense.

a gun can stop someone in an instant. But you are not allowed to use the gun to say, shoot every limb in the guy's body.

Lmk how many times you punch when you fear for your life.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
well, good news I guess

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html

Grand Jury is being convened.

Still, that's short of an arrest. I think this is further evidence that it's not so much the Sanford police is corrupt as it is that they're tied by the "stand your ground" law.

The law didn't cause the SPD to lie about contents of the 911 tapes. Lying about evidence goes to mindset.

However agreed, the grand jury is positive news.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The law didn't cause the SPD to lie about contents of the 911 tapes. Lying about evidence goes to mindset.

However agreed, the grand jury is positive news.

what was the lie again? I thought I covered it. It might have been shitty communication on the PD's part, but the point is that Zimmerman was likely tipped off by general movement patterns and not skin color.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Here's the law, even an aggressor can claim self-defense.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Thats the problem, there is no evidence to support his life was in danger or he was having great bodily harm done. He didn't even need medical treatment. I do believe in Fla there should be a justification or appropiate force. Nothing you have said or that has been presented shows any reason whatsoever that a gun should have been used.

If this goes to a trial, no jury is going to see him walk. The more and more that comes out, the more and more I'll say it flatout, he intended to a look for a reason to kill that kid. If he did not have that gun, he would have probably never even chased him, let alone hunt him down a second time.

And you, spidey, alky and a couple others look like total scumbags for defending this POS. He may get by on a technicality of the law, but he provoked, tried to assault, and killed an innocent kid. All because he was black walking in the rain.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
what was the lie again? I thought I covered it. It might have been shitty communication on the PD's part, but the point is that Zimmerman was likely tipped off by general movement patterns and not skin color.

That Z didn't know the race of T.

By movement patterns do you mean one foot on front of the other? Was T in violation of minimum walking MPH? Was T required to walk with his head up even in tha rain? These were things Z bitched about in the 911 call.

BTW - Notice how Z though he could deduce T was on drugs and the police didn't even draw blood from Z to check for the same thing.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
The thing about firing a gun in self-defense is that it prevents more serious injury from occurring. But no, it is not sympathetic.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Thats the problem, there is no evidence to support his life was in danger or he was having great bodily harm done. He didn't even need medical treatment. I do believe in Fla there should be a justification or appropiate force. Nothing you have said or that has been presented shows any reason whatsoever that a gun should have been used.

If this goes to a trial, no jury is going to see him walk. The more and more that comes out, the more and more I'll say it flatout, he intended to a look for a reason to kill that kid. If he did not have that gun, he would have probably never even chased him, let alone hunt him down a second time.

And you, spidey, alky and a couple others look like total scumbags for defending this POS. He may get by on a technicality of the law, but he provoked, tried to assault, and killed an innocent kid. All because he was black walking in the rain.

If he gets off on a technicality in Fla the feds wil get him.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
That Z didn't know the race of T.

By movement patterns do you mean one foot on front of the other? Was T in violation of minimum walking MPH? Was T required to walk with his head up even in tha rain? These were things Z bitched about in the 911 call.

But he didn't know the race of T when he dialed 911. He figured out the race of T midway through the call, but the impetus for the call wasn't skin color. It couldn't be skin color since the neighborhood has many black residents.

The suspicious behavior is really just T being lost and a little bugged out at Z following him. But pretend you don't know that. You see someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood and he's looking intently at the houses. Who knows, he might be looking for an open window.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Thats the problem, there is no evidence to support his life was in danger or he was having great bodily harm done. He didn't even need medical treatment. I do believe in Fla there should be a justification or appropiate force. Nothing you have said or that has been presented shows any reason whatsoever that a gun should have been used.

If this goes to a trial, no jury is going to see him walk. The more and more that comes out, the more and more I'll say it flatout, he intended to a look for a reason to kill that kid. If he did not have that gun, he would have probably never even chased him, let alone hunt him down a second time.

And you, spidey, alky and a couple others look like total scumbags for defending this POS. He may get by on a technicality of the law, but he provoked, tried to assault, and killed an innocent kid. All because he was black walking in the rain.

Go read it again, it states "person reasonably believes".

I'm not defending him, I'm just saying that the law has to be applied as it's written. You can change laws after the fact via the correct channels but you can't apply the change after the fact just because you don't like the law.

As for going to trial unless the prosecutor can refute his claim of self-defense he will be immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions as per the law. This is the main reason why they can't arrest or charge him at this time.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
But he didn't know the race of T when he dialed 911. He figured out the race of T midway through the call, but the impetus for the call wasn't skin color. It couldn't be skin color since the neighborhood has many black residents.

The suspicious behavior is really just T being lost and a little bugged out at Z following him. But pretend you don't know that. You see someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood and he's looking intently at the houses. Who knows, he might be looking for an open window.

Based on T's last call his walking pattern probably became erratic after he spotted Z following him and T was trying to get away. No evidence T was lost.

In the 911 call Z said he "thinks" T is black(surmised before call). Later in the call he confirmed. There was nothing else that warranted suspicious bahavior.