What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[Fern]

A question I think interesting, yet has largely gone unexplored is if it's (legally) possible for two individuals to engage in a fight and both be (simultaneously) permitted to a claim of self-defense?

I think it is given the standard of a "reasonable person".

We can't know TM's side, but is it possible that he knew GZ had a gun and was following him? Was TM trying to evade GZ and, through error or accident, suddenly came face-to-face with GZ 'reasonably' thinking GZ did so purposefully and with intent to harm him?

If so, under the law he might he be found to have reasonably resorted to self-defense.

At the same time, GZ's version could be truthful thus permitting him self-defense.

Again, the legal standard is a 'reasonable person', not an omniscient or perfect one.

Perspective is key here, and I think it theoretically possible both side's could be reasonable.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

A question I think interesting, yet has largely gone unexplored is if it's (legally) possible for two individuals to engage in a fight and both be (simultaneously) permitted to a claim of self-defense?

I think it is given the standard of a "reasonable person".

We can't know TM's side, but is it possible that he knew GZ had a gun and was following him? Was TM trying to evade GZ and, through error or accident, suddenly came face-to-face with GZ 'reasonably' thinking GZ did so purposefully and with intent to harm him?

If so, under the law he might he be found to have reasonably resorted to self-defense.

At the same time, GZ's version could be truthful thus permitting him self-defense.

Again, the legal standard is a 'reasonable person', not an omniscient or perfect one.

Perspective is key here, and I think it theoretically possible both side's could be reasonable.

Fern

Whats reasonable about following someone you think is suspicious without any supporting evidence?

 

[sandorski]

2 major problems with the whole situation, IMO.

1) We have no idea how the altercations started, but do know that Z is partially responsible due to following T.

2) There are other real world examples of people who have tried to use Stand Your Ground in situations that were less than acceptable.

 

[Fern]

Whats reasonable about following someone you think is suspicious without any supporting evidence?

I don't think that's relevant to the question I posed. The 'following' doesn't permit a self-defense claim in GZ's situation (although it could help establish one for TM), it's the alleged beating he was taking.

Given the frequency of robberies, the profile/appearance of the known criminals and TM's claimed behavior, GZ's suspicion seems reasonable to me. And again, under my understanding of the FL law whether or not that suspicion was reasonable has no bearing on GZ's right to self-defense.

Whether or not GZ was the aggressor, my reading indicates GZ's claim comes down to whether he reasonably feared great bodily harm or death was imminent. In this regard, it's important to note that GZ could not withdraw as he was on his back.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think that's relevant to the question I posed. The 'following' doesn't permit a self-defense claim in GZ's situation (although it could help establish one for TM), it's the alleged beating he was taking.

Given the frequency of robberies, the profile/appearance of the known criminals and TM's claimed behavior, GZ's suspicion seems reasonable to me. And again, under my understanding of the FL law whether or not that suspicion was reasonable has no bearing on GZ's right to self-defense.

Whether or not GZ was the aggressor, my reading indicates GZ's claim comes down to whether he reasonably feared great bodily harm or death was imminent. In this regard, it's important to note that GZ could not withdraw as he was on his back.

Fern

So you think it's reasonable for someone to follow someone and put themselves in possible jeopardy because of how they look?

No, a reasonable person would call the cops and keep a distance, they certainly wouldn't be chasing someone who has yet to do anything other than look suspicious.

 

[lotus503]

As major contributor to the other thread I can shed some light on a few things.

Most of the pages on the other thread are indeed speculation and interpretation of information, with some other objectionable memes.

I think the law doesn't account for this situation, legally I have to concede as negligent as I think some of Zimmerman's actions or lack of actions were that night there is insufficient evidence of a crime committed on his part. I do appreciate I am not the state and do not have all of the evidence in the case, nor have I done more than cursory looks at what has been released.

I do think law should exist that that is punitive towards people who demonstrate negligent behavior or below standard judgement while armed with devices that can kill easily.

 

[lotus503]

So you think it's reasonable for someone to follow someone and put themselves in possible jeopardy because of how they look?

No, a reasonable person would call the cops and keep a distance, they certainly wouldn't be chasing someone who has yet to do anything other than look suspicious.

My issue with him following him goes beyond that.

Zimmerman indicated in the calls to police that martin was acting like he had something in his waste band and was acting odd. Why would you follow after someone who may be armed and erratic? I suspect if Zimmerman wasn't armed he would have stayed in his car, that is pure conjecture on my part, somewhat corroborated by Zimmerman's earlier calls to police.

That to me is putting ones self in harms way when no actionable crime was in progress and demonstrated poor judgement. Not identifying himself to Martin was poor judgement all of these things would be expetced of law enforcement yet when a private armed citizen takes on the role of crime prevention the same standard does not apply.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Zimmerman gets off on this charge -- which I think likely -- they are going to try to find something else to get him on, even if it's relatively minor.

exactly -- sort of like putting OJ`s life under a microscope..lol......that was bad of me....

 

[Jaskalas]

So you think it's reasonable for someone to follow someone and put themselves in possible jeopardy because of how they look?

I think it's reasonable for anyone to see something / someone suspicious and check it out. How can you not agree?

 

[ivwshane]

I think it's reasonable for anyone to see something / someone suspicious and check it out. How can you not agree?

"Check out" as in follow and be close enough for a confrontation? Yeah that's not reasonable, it's idiotic, especially considering he thought this guy was bad enough that he had to call the police.

 

[randomrogue]

Whether he can get convicted or not I have no clue. I'm not a lawyer. A jury sitting there and thinking "reasonable doubt" is going to have a hard time. Maybe not though.

Zimmerman really said that he thought the guy had something in his waistband and was acting odd and STILL went out there after him?

During the trial they'll have to come to some kind of conclusion about who started the confrontation. On one side you have an unarmed 17 year old kid that's 100 lbs lighter than the other just walking home. Then you have a 100 lb heavier man with a gun who has made disparaging remarks to the police, says Martin is armed, and chose to not stay in his car. Without an eye witness to prove otherwise a reasonable person might pick Zimmerman as the man who started the altercation. All he had to do was go up and shove Martin. In that case you're left with the pick a fight, lose, and shoot the guy situation and although the law might not punish him for it he could still be guilty.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

During the trial they'll have to come to some kind of conclusion about who started the confrontation. On one side you have an unarmed 17 year old kid that's 100 lbs lighter than the other just walking home. Then you have a 100 lb heavier man with a gun who has made disparaging remarks to the police, says Martin is armed, and chose to not stay in his car.

This is a good summary of what I was saying earlier -- there's no proof that Zimmerman started this altercation, but his behavior is, at least to me, far more suggestive of someone looking to get into something than someone "just following and observing".

Frankly, I think Zimmerman is lying about quite a bit of what happened that day.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Frankly, I think Zimmerman is lying about quite a bit of what happened that day.

On what basis do you come to this conclusion?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

On what basis do you come to this conclusion?

It's not a conclusion, it's an opinion. A conclusion would require proof that he was lying, and if we had that, this case would be all but over except for the formality of the trial.

My opinion on it is formed the same way anyone has an opinion about someone else lying -- a gut feeling that his story doesn't add up. As I said, he has provided evidence of a negative disposition towards Martin; he took the step of approaching him, leading to the confrontation; I find it highly unlikely that he really was in fear for his life from someone who weighed 10050 pounds less than he did; and I seriously doubt his claims that he was "jumped from behind" while returning to his car.

He may well have fired in self-defense, but there's aspects of this whole thing that do not make sense, and I do not think he has been entirely truthful (at best).

Edit to change 100 lb to 50 lb. Makes his story slightly more plausible, but only slightly.

 

[randomrogue]

I don't understand the law enough. We operate on an innocent until proven guilty system and they are going to have a hard time proving him guilty since dead man tell no tales and there are no real witnesses.

I don't like the idea that someone can potentially start a fight, scream for help, and then shoot the person dead. I'm not saying that's what happened - I'll let the trial tell us what happened - but it seems to me that this is possible.

Post mortem reports gave Martin's body length and weight as 5′11″– 6′0″ (1.80–1.83 m) and 158–160 lb (72–73 kg).[39][40] Statements from Martin's family indicated his height prior to death was 6′3″ (1.91 m) and weight no more than 150 lb (68 kg).


Zimmerman's height is shown as 5′7″ (1.70 m); and his weight as 185 lb (84 kg) on his Seminole County Sheriff's Office Inmate Booking Information dated 4/11/2012, the date of his arrest.[56] Zimmerman's height is shown as 5′8″ (1.73 m); and his weight at 200 lb (91 kg) on the Sanford Police Department Offense Report for 2/26/2012, the night of the shooting.[57]

I thought I'd quote this since people keep mentioning that there was a 100 lb difference. There wasn't. It was 50 lbs.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not a conclusion, it's an opinion. A conclusion would require proof that he was lying, and if we had that, this case would be all but over except for the formality of the trial.

My opinion on it is formed the same way anyone has an opinion about someone else lying -- a gut feeling that his story doesn't add up. As I said, he has provided evidence of a negative disposition towards Martin; he took the step of approaching him, leading to the confrontation; I find it highly unlikely that he really was in fear for his life from someone who weighed 100 pounds less than he did; and I seriously doubt his claims that he was "jumped from behind" while returning to his car.

He may well have fired in self-defense, but there's aspects of this whole thing that do not make sense, and I do not think he has been entirely truthful (at best).

So you have no facts to support your opinion. Got it.

 

[randomrogue]

I think we're all entitled to form our opinion based on what we've read and heard. I personally don't believe Zimmerman either. I just don't think he can be convicted based on what I've heard so far. Spidey had some really good points to back up the difficulty the prosecution will have to convict in the monster thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think we're all entitled to form our opinion based on what we've read and heard. I personally don't believe Zimmerman either. I just don't think he can be convicted based on what I've heard so far. Spidey had some really good points to back up the difficulty the prosecution will have to convict in the monster thread.

What I'm trying to get at is the "reasoning" used to arrive at such an opinion. I personally don't see any rational thought that supports this opinion which makes me wonder if biased emotional responses are, in reality, the primary basis for forming such an opinion.

 

[randomrogue]

What I'm trying to get at is the "reasoning" used to arrive at such an opinion. I personally don't see any rational thought that supports this opinion which makes me wonder if biased emotional responses are, in reality, the primary basis for forming such an opinion.

I think you'd be far more productive in this thread if you simply presented your point of view so that we could compare. You've made a number of posts here questioning others but you haven't presented anything yourself. Tough to have a discussion without both parties participating.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think you'd be far more productive in this thread if you simply presented your point of view so that we could compare. You've made a number of posts here questioning others but you haven't presented anything yourself. Tough to have a discussion without both parties participating.

I think it's very clear that I've presented my point of view and I'm not sure how you came to a conclusion that I didn't. If you don't want to discuss or find it "tough" to have a discussion...that's fine....walk away. But please don't say things that aren't true.

 

[GreenMeters]

I think it's very clear that I've presented my point of view and I'm not sure how you came to a conclusion that I didn't. If you don't want to discuss or find it "tough" to have a discussion...that's fine....walk away. But please don't say things that aren't true.

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly asked people why they think Zimmerman is lying; you've never stated why you think Zimmerman is telling the truth.

 

[randomrogue]

I think it's very clear that I've presented my point of view and I'm not sure how you came to a conclusion that I didn't. If you don't want to discuss or find it "tough" to have a discussion...that's fine....walk away. But please don't say things that aren't true.

I'm talking about in this thread. If you posted your opinion in the other thread and don't want to repeat yourself I would be fine with you linking to there but I'm not sure that's allowed or really something we want. Just present your point of view here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, you haven't. You've repeatedly asked people why they think Zimmerman is lying; you've never stated why you think Zimmerman is telling the truth.

I have no rational reason to believe Zimmerman is lying. The facts and Zimmerman's account are largely consistent.

Reason is dictating my opinion. Those who somehow "feel" that Z is guilty without any relevant factual basis are being irrational in my opinion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So you have no facts to support your opinion. Got it.

That, of course, is not what I said.

In fact, I laid out specific facts that i feel justify my opinion. Saying that they aren't conclusive proof doesn't mean they aren't factually based.

You're free to see those facts differently, but you having a different opinion that me doesn't mean I have "no facts to support my opinion".

To draw a pertinent example, Zimmerman claimed he followed Martin because he "seemed suspicious". What "facts" were that decision based on? Certainly no more than the ones I've used to assess Zimmerman himself.

And I have to agree that you have not done much to spell out why you think Zimmerman is telling the truth. You say Zimmerman's story is "largely consistent" but haven't addressed significant flaws that others have pointed out.

 

[randomrogue]

Police: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yes"

Police: "OK, we don't need you to do that."

Zimmerman: "OK"

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

If you haven't read the transcript and heard it you might want to. Not only is there a bias but there's racism. Worse, he follows him when he doesn't need to.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-slur-in-911-tapes/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

So the consistent part is that you have an armed, racist, and angry man who took it upon himself to leave his vehicle against the wishes of the police and moments later killed an unarmed 17 year old kid outside his residence. The trial will determine how the death occurred and if a crime was committed but I think it's a fair opinion, and rational, to not believe Zimmerman is a stand up guy.