I honestly dont care if Zimmerman was a racist or not.

 

I just dont think his actions were reasonable given the circumstances. If Zimmerman was afraid of black people, prejudiced, whatever, it doesnt necessarily make him a criminal/bad person/should be convicted.

 

The reason he should face some consequence, is because the person he killed, turned out to be an unarmed minor and there should be some sort of consequence for that.

 

When i make a mistake, even if it is the most innocent/honest, I still have to pay for it.

I'd say that racists are in fact bad people but agree that it doesn't pertain to this case legally. That's an argument with people trying to justify or embrace his racism.

I'd say that racists are in fact bad people but agree that it doesn't pertain to this case legally. That's an argument with people trying to justify or embrace his racism.

 

Keep preachin'!

Damn this thread is frustrating.

 

I don't believe you for second, Jenks, if you say that someone following you all over the place for that duration of time isn't enough to think you are in imminent danger. What are you supposed to do? Roll the dice on the fact that this person isn't going to harm you, especially when he finally approaches you on foot to a very close distance?

 

If that isn't incredibly threatening behavior, I don't know what the hell is, whether you knew he was packing or not. Since when does someone need a gun to kill you within seconds, especially at close range?

 

 

Damn this thread is frustrating.

 

I don't believe you for second, Jenks, if you say that someone following you all over the place for that duration of time isn't enough to think you are in imminent danger. What are you supposed to do? Roll the dice on the fact that this person isn't going to harm you, especially when he finally approaches you on foot to a very close distance?

 

If that isn't incredibly threatening behavior, I don't know what the hell is, whether you knew he was packing or not. Since when does someone need a gun to kill you within seconds, especially at close range?

 

It is also frustrating for this reason. Even if Zimmerman is a complete racist bastard who profiles young black males, it doesn't matter. That has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence in this case. It is a complete sideshow to the relevant facts of the case, and it continues to cloud the trial at hand, and threatens to poison public opinion if Zimmerman isn't convicted to the point where something really bad could happen, as did after the Rodney King beating trail.

LOL the white guy who grew up and currently lives in the suburbs, which I'm guessing is overwhelmingly white, is telling everyone else about racism.

 

But I have a black friend on facebook!

Star witness for prosecution was anything but. Got caught lying 2 or 3 times she is not credible.

Damn this thread is frustrating.

 

I don't believe you for second, Jenks, if you say that someone following you all over the place for that duration of time isn't enough to think you are in imminent danger. What are you supposed to do? Roll the dice on the fact that this person isn't going to harm you, especially when he finally approaches you on foot to a very close distance?

If that isn't incredibly threatening behavior, I don't know what the hell is, whether you knew he was packing or not. Since when does someone need a gun to kill you within seconds, especially at close range?

 

It's threatening behavior and I wouldn't exactly feel great about it, but if you just turned around and shot that person would that be legit under stand your ground or self defense? No way. There's no way a jury would consider that a reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm.

 

And again, let's use the evidence we have which is Martin's statements to his friend. He's more pissed off about it than afraid.

It's threatening behavior and I wouldn't exactly feel great about it, but if you just turned around and shot that person would that be legit under stand your ground or self defense? No way. There's no way a jury would consider that a reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm.

 

And again, let's use the evidence we have which is Martin's statements to his friend. He's more pissed off about it than afraid.

 

Stand Your Ground is an odd law if it can be applied in this context. Let's say that the facts are exactly as Zimmerman alleges. Zimmerman follows Martin. Martin gets mad and attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is getting his head slammed against the concrete, pulls the trigger and kills Martin.

 

Here's my issue with this whole thing. Zimmerman clearly starts this entire encounter. But for his act of following Martin, no fight ensues, and Martin is still alive. Why should the guy whose action started the entire encounter get the benefit of SYG? Basically seems to ok the use of deadly force any time someone is losing a fight, regardless of who was at fault in starting the fight. That, to me, just does not seem like a just result. And why do we need SYG when there are already a number of instances in which self defense can be claimed?

 

Edit: and the first paragraph is not what happened. Martin wasn't armed. Didn't just turn around and shoot someone. The better question for the first paragraph is that, if someone has been following you for 20 minutes, would that person be justified in confronting the follower? If my wife was out of a run and some creepy dude was following her for 20 minutes, I would hope if he approached her, she would be justified in pepper spraying his face.

Edited July 1, 201312 yr by illinilaw08

In Zimmerman's warped mind frame at the time, Martin trying to lose him may have also looked like a criminal trying to flee.

 

The bolded is the important thing here. Zimmerman was not acting like a reasonable person when he followed Martin. If Martin was on a neighbor's lawn, looking in the windows, etc., it's a very different analysis. But based on everything I have heard, Martin was just walking on the sidewalk. That's the tragic thing here. Whatever caused Zimmerman to follow Martin, whether it was racism, some misplaced idea of justice, or even legitimate concern for his neighbors, Martin wasn't doing anything wrong when he was walking on the sidewalks of this development. But for Zimmerman's acts, Martin would still be alive. And regardless of the outcome of this trial, Martin's death is tragic because it absolutely did not need to happen.

It's threatening behavior and I wouldn't exactly feel great about it, but if you just turned around and shot that person would that be legit under stand your ground or self defense? No way. There's no way a jury would consider that a reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm.

 

And again, let's use the evidence we have which is Martin's statements to his friend. He's more pissed off about it than afraid.

Jenks,

The problem is that Zimmerman's behavior in and of itself is threatening. Of course that doesn't mean TM should just turn around and fire on him, but it does ratchet up the tension of the situation enough to put both parties on edge, which leads to s*** like this happening. You have to remember, Martin doesn't know who Zimmerman is and he doesn't know what his intentions are. He doesn't know if Zimmerman is a lawful person, and honestly, expecting Zimmerman to behave lawfully might get Martin killed if doesn't act with extreme caution. When you consider that Martin is a teenager, and under duress from being followed, you can see how he would act irrationally.

 

You are correct in that Zimmerman's actions may not have been per se unlawful, but they certainly were enough to increase the probability of something like this happening exponentially. The result, Martin is dead and Zimmerman is on trial basically fighting for his freedom.

 

It's difficult for me to feel any sympathy for him, considering the stupidity and recklessness of his actions.

Stand Your Ground is an odd law if it can be applied in this context. Let's say that the facts are exactly as Zimmerman alleges. Zimmerman follows Martin. Martin gets mad and attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is getting his head slammed against the concrete, pulls the trigger and kills Martin.

 

Here's my issue with this whole thing. Zimmerman clearly starts this entire encounter. But for his act of following Martin, no fight ensues, and Martin is still alive. Why should the guy whose action started the entire encounter get the benefit of SYG? Basically seems to ok the use of deadly force any time someone is losing a fight, regardless of who was at fault in starting the fight. That, to me, just does not seem like a just result. And why do we need SYG when there are already a number of instances in which self defense can be claimed?

 

Edit: and the first paragraph is not what happened. Martin wasn't armed. Didn't just turn around and shoot someone. The better question for the first paragraph is that, if someone has been following you for 20 minutes, would that person be justified in confronting the follower? If my wife was out of a run and some creepy dude was following her for 20 minutes, I would hope if he approached her, she would be justified in pepper spraying his face.

 

That whole convo was started by Balta who said Martin had every reason to defend himself and I think he or someone else brought up if he had a gun he could have used it. And i've been arguing since that he could not because he was not in fear of imminent death.

 

And SYG doesn't apply if you instigate a fight and start losing. That may or may not be one of the reasons they're not using the SYG defense (yet) but to me tailing someone is different than starting a fight that you start to lose.

 

 

 

That whole convo was started by Balta who said Martin had every reason to defend himself and I think he or someone else brought up if he had a gun he could have used it. And i've been arguing since that he could not because he was not in fear of imminent death.

 

And SYG doesn't apply if you instigate a fight and start losing. That may or may not be one of the reasons they're not using the SYG defense (yet) but to me tailing someone is different than starting a fight that you start to lose.

My problem with that is that in this day and age, at least in my opinion, Zimmerman's behavior is threatening enough to frighten Martin just as much as if he walks up to him and begins punching him. When someone is following you in a vehicle for a sustained period of time, and then steps out of the vehicle and starts tracking you on foot, in this day and age of guns and other weaponry, that really seems to me just as frightening, if not more frightening, than someone starting a fistfight with you.

My problem with that is that in this day and age, at least in my opinion, Zimmerman's behavior is threatening enough to frighten Martin just as much as if he walks up to him and begins punching him. When someone is following you in a vehicle for a sustained period of time, and then steps out of the vehicle and starts tracking you on foot, in this day and age of guns and other weaponry, that really seems to me just as frightening, if not more frightening, than someone starting a fistfight with you.

Except that what we know at the moment is he wasn't frightened of the 'cray ass cracker', he was pissed. Frightened he might have gone up to the first house he saw and knocked on the door for help. or called the police or even the people he was staying with instead of his girlfriend to brag about it.

Except that what we know at the moment is he wasn't frightened of the 'cray ass cracker', he was pissed. Frightened he might have gone up to the first house he saw and knocked on the door for help. or called the police or even the people he was staying with instead of his girlfriend to brag about it.

I dunno about that...when you are that age, especially in an urban culture, fear is really perceived to be weakness. He very well could have been frightened, and my guess is he was very frightened, but was trying to mask that fear with anger or irritation, especially if he was talking to a woman when he was expressing these emotions.

 

But I have a black friend on facebook!

Isn't that the defense that Alec Baldwin's wife tried to use? "He can't be homophobic, he has gay friends and works for gay causes! Just because he said he wanted to kill that Queen meant nothing!"

Isn't that the defense that Alec Baldwin's wife tried to use? "He can't be homophobic, he has gay friends and works for gay causes! Just because he said he wanted to kill that Queen meant nothing!"

Jamie Gold?

Interesting twist I didn't know (and find a little hard to believe): Zimmerman didn't know Martin was dead until a cop told him.

Interesting twist I didn't know (and find a little hard to believe): Zimmerman didn't know Martin was dead until a cop told him.

I don't believe that, at all.

So I guess they are now charging Zimmerman with other charges (like manslaughter) lol

 

Seems pretty unfair.

So the Judge is allowing the jurors to decide whether to convict Zimmerman on a lesser charge of manslaughter even though he was charged with second degree murder. She's delayed a ruling on whether they can also be allowed to convict him of third degree murder.

 

I don't know much about Florida criminal law procedure, but this seems highly unjust to me. If the prosecutors charge you with a crime, they shouldn't have "back-ups" when they fail to prove their case.

Im still not understanding why he wasnt just charged with all of this in the first place.

Im still not understanding why he wasnt just charged with all of this in the first place.

 

Is it legal to do that? Charge people with multiple charges on one specific crime?

Is it legal to do that? Charge people with multiple charges on one specific crime?

 

Im not a criminal lawyer so I cant be 100% sure, but in a civil case you can absolutely plead/try multiple alternative theories.

 

IE

 

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Quantum Meriut

 

I just cant believe that in criminal law you are stuck with murder 1 or 2, because that would make it extremely difficult for the prosecution. Basically if you go murder 1 and the jury thought "Well it was heat of moment" the defendant then is completely innocent?

 

It just doesnt seem right.