What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[Charles Kozierok]

What do you base the underlined on?

The PDF I linked earlier, for one.

I don't think you can give a justified reason why you'd "need" to keep an eye on a group of teenaged girls though.

But I'm not making the analogy to claim equivalence in terms of reasonableness. I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between simple "observing" and the more proactive "following and observing".

How about if GZ wasn't watching TM at all at the time TM approached GZ, who then asks GZ a rhetorical question, decks him, then starts wailing on him?

Obviously Zimmerman would be the victim. But that's not what happened here, even by Zimmerman's own admission; he was not just standing around.

Now, let me turn it around on you. Exactly what would Zimmerman have had to have done before you would have found his actions unreasonable? I mean in terms of how he was following.

 

[OCNewbie]

Now, let me turn it around on you. Exactly what would Zimmerman have had to have done before you would have found his actions unreasonable? I mean in terms of how he was following.

If he was literally chasing TM, like him in a full sprint, TM in sight, and TM in a full sprint, with GZ trailing TM maybe 30-40 feet or less.

Actually, if any sort of chase like that happened, especially in close proximity, then I'd think that would have given TM a much greater sense of danger than what appears to have happened. What appears to have happened is TM disappeared to GZ's right, down a paved pathway between houses (approximately 167 feet separating them at this point already), then at that point, GZ getting out of his vehicle, then moving quickly (walking fast, light jog, whatever it was) to that corner and stopping, without TM being anywhere in sight when he got there. Then GZ stays on the phone with the dispatcher another full 2 minutes, without TM anywhere in sight. Then, it's an addition 2 1/2 minutes until the first 911 call came in. So a minimum of 2 minutes of visual loss, then somewhere between 0 seconds and 2 1/2 minutes addition visual losss... that's the unknown portion. Somewhere in that 2 1/2 minutes, GZ and TM encountered each other apparently right where TM had fled from (the top of the T) over 2 minutes prior, the altercation began, and one witness heard enough of it to become concerned and call 911.

 

[lotus503]

If he was literally chasing TM, like him in a full sprint, TM in sight, and TM in a full sprint, with GZ trailing TM maybe 30-40 feet or less.

Actually, if any sort of chase like that happened, especially in close proximity, then I'd think that would have given TM a much greater sense of danger than what appears to have happened. What appears to have happened is TM disappeared to GZ's right, down a paved pathway between houses (approximately 167 feet separating them at this point already), then at that point, GZ getting out of his vehicle, then moving quickly (walking fast, light jog, whatever it was) to that corner and stopping, without TM being anywhere in sight when he got there. Then GZ stays on the phone with the dispatcher another full 2 minutes, without TM anywhere in sight. Then, it's an addition 2 1/2 minutes until the first 911 call came in. So a minimum of 2 minutes of visual loss, then somewhere between 0 seconds and 2 1/2 minutes addition visual losss... that's the unknown portion. Somewhere in that 2 1/2 minutes, GZ and TM encountered each other apparently right where TM had fled from (the top of the T) over 2 minutes prior, the altercation began, and one witness heard enough of it to become concerned and call 911.

So he encounters him at the T, by his own account is punched fell to the ground, was mounted and had his head slammed into the concrete, he mentioned he shimmied with martin on top, but he would have had to have done that some distance to account for the location of some of the items and martin's body.

Or did he hear Martin on the phone south and go south to investigate? more in line of where John places them?

 

[OCNewbie]

So he encounters him at the T, by his own account is punched fell to the ground, was mounted and had his head slammed into the concrete, he mentioned he shimmied with martin on top, but he would have had to have done that some distance to account for the location of some of the items and martin's body.

Or did he hear Martin on the phone south and go south to investigate? more in line of where John places them?

I don't know. That has been one aspect of the encounter that I don't readily have an explanation for. That said, a big reason behind that is I don't believe we yet have a solid understanding of the exact distances we're dealing with. We don't know exactly where at the "T" GZ was punched (if it started there). We also don't know exactly where TM was actually shot. We know where his body ended up (I presume), but he didn't die instantly after the shot. He was 6 feet tall, so if he even took a couple half steps before collapsing, that could easily account for 10 feet (maybe more or less) of distance if he happened to stumble south down the T. There's too many variables to consider in that area to conclude exactly what happened there. If GZ is telling the 100% truth, I don't imagine he even knows exactly what happened in those moments, step-by-step.

 

[lotus503]

I don't know. That has been one aspect of the encounter that I don't readily have an explanation for. That said, a big reason behind that is I don't believe we yet have a solid understanding of the exact distances we're dealing with. We don't know exactly where at the "T" GZ was punched (if it started there). We also don't know exactly where TM was actually shot. We know where his body ended up (I presume), but he didn't die instantly after the shot. He was 6 feet tall, so if he even took a couple half steps before collapsing, that could easily account for 10 feet (maybe more or less) of distance if he happened to stumble south down the T. There's too many variables to consider in that area to conclude exactly what happened there. If GZ is telling the 100% truth, I don't imagine he even knows exactly what happened in those moments, step-by-step.

Well didn't zimmerman contend TM came from behind some Bushes?

I could be wrong but I dont recall seeing any Bushes at the T

 

[Geosurface]

Well didn't zimmerman contend TM came from behind some Bushes?

I could be wrong but I dont recall seeing any Bushes at the T

There are bushes on either side along houses not far down the path from the T, but it appears this was just Zimmerman taking a guess at how Martin was suddenly there again. His guess was he hid around there, my guess is he sprinted up from the house he was staying at.

Remember, Zimmerman didn't have access to daylight or police lit photos of the area, and months to think about it with other sources of information to consider. At the time he went back for the reenactment, did he even know Trayvon had been staying in the community yet?

 

[umbrella39]

... and here we go again...

 

[OCNewbie]

... and here we go again...

I know! You keep stalking Geo's posts into threads you don't even seem to be interested in! What gives??

 

[Charles Kozierok]

umbrella39, OC: We can do better here, if everyone stays on topic.

Thanks.

 

[Fern]

The statement I made is that once you decide to start following someone, you are doing more than observing. I don't see how it's "intellectually dishonest". It's just a difference of opinion about what he did and what it implies.
-snip-

Words matter.

What if Z's actions were described as "observing, then repositioning himself to maintain observation". Would he then be in compliance with the suggested NW guidelines?

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What if Z's actions were described as "observing, then repositioning himself to maintain observation". Would he then be in compliance with the suggested NW guidelines?

It's vague, but IMO, no.

It says if you observe something to call it in but that "citizens should never try to take action on those observations". I think "repositioning to maintain observation" counts as taking action -- especially if it involves getting closer to the suspect or putting yourself in a more vulnerable position (on foot versus in a car).

 

[DrPizza]

Imho, all this discussion about observing and guidelines are just a distractor. They're guidelines, not laws. Not rules that are going to get you fired if you don't obey them. They're merely "we suggest to your informal organization that to maximize the safety of your members, you follow the following list of strong suggestions." (edit: and those guidelines were right - by not following them, he jeopardized his *own* safety.)

He broke no laws by getting out of his car.

The only question should be, was he the one who turned it into a physical confrontation? I don't even care if he was muttering racial slurs. They're no reason for a violent physical altercation. If he's the first person to throw a punch, shove the other person, whatever.... guilty. If TM was the first one to get physical, it was self defense. Period.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think anyone here would disagree that that is the key legal question. It's not being discussed much for two reasons.

First, we really don't have any way of knowing definitively what the answer is. This probably means that Zimmerman walks. As I said before, I'm waiting for the trial to see what happens, because the lawyers and judge and jury will get to see all the evidence, whereas all I have is bits and pieces. But the criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it's hard to see how the prosecution will meet it here.

And second, because it's so clear cut, it's not particularly interesting. At least, not to me. What I find more worthy of debate are the concepts surrounding the decisions Zimmerman made that night, and their wider ramifications for potential future similar scenarios.

(Edit: I should clarify that it's not being discussed here very much. because there's another thread for all the argumentation about the evidence. That's obviously interesting to some people or the thread would have five digits of posts. I just meant that aside from arguing over what the evidence means, the legal issues are pretty much cut-and-dried.)

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's vague, but IMO, no.

It says if you observe something to call it in but that "citizens should never try to take action on those observations". I think "repositioning to maintain observation" counts as taking action -- especially if it involves getting closer to the suspect or putting yourself in a more vulnerable position (on foot versus in a car).

You see something from your window that makes you wonder.
Walking outside to reposition yourself to see down the block is not the proper thing to do?

Maybe John should have never gone outside to see what was happeneing; better to stay behind windows like others did.

Everyone should just lock themselves up because it is not safe to stick your nose out the door. The person being observed might take offesence at being observed; not proper to see over a person's shoulder.

 

[werepossum]

Imho, all this discussion about observing and guidelines are just a distractor. They're guidelines, not laws. Not rules that are going to get you fired if you don't obey them. They're merely "we suggest to your informal organization that to maximize the safety of your members, you follow the following list of strong suggestions." (edit: and those guidelines were right - by not following them, he jeopardized his *own* safety.)

He broke no laws by getting out of his car.

The only question should be, was he the one who turned it into a physical confrontation? I don't even care if he was muttering racial slurs. They're no reason for a violent physical altercation. If he's the first person to throw a punch, shove the other person, whatever.... guilty. If TM was the first one to get physical, it was self defense. Period.

I dunno. I still believe in "fighting words", that some speech is so egregious that it makes a violent response pardonable, if not quite legal. If I'm a juror weighing a case of a black man charged with simple assault and/or battery of a white man who called him the "N" word, he's walking. I think a swift punch in the nose is an acceptable response.

Although this case certainly illustrates that it's not the smart response.