Powered by TypePad

« Justified! The Big Finish | Main | To The Moon! »

April 11, 2012

Comments

DebinNC

It was reasonable imo for GZ to fear that once the head shots rendered him unconscious the enraged stranger would then take his gun and kill him.

cboldt

-- as TMartin was rising up off of GZ's torso, GZ grabs his pistol from his trouser waistband and shoots TMartin once in the chest. Is that ironclad 'reasonable' use of deadly force in self-defense? --


No, it's not. If the threat stops, use of force become revenge, and revenge is for the law to take.


If Martin had announced that he was through administering the beating, and makes a good faith effort to withdraw, the "who started it" clock starts is reset.

Danube of Thought

"Is that ironclad 'reasonable' use of deadly force in self-defense?"

I would think not (assuming I believed the witness). I think the right to use deadly force would have been extinguished the moment Martin broke off the attack. I also think that if there were such a witness, we wouldn't be where we are today.

NK

cboldt-- self-defense cases are routinely no-billed because of the nature and conduct of the decedent. The decedent is the abusive husband or boyfriend who beats the woman until one day she's forced to use a knife to defend herself (I worked on such a case the in Anacostia, the US Attorney in DC indicted, then dropped before trial), he is the carjacker, he is the mugger, he is the rapist, he is a criminal who is killed in the course of committing a crime of his own-- in those cases the State won't indict and force the victim to prove the need for self-defense. Like it or not, those are not the circumstances here.

cboldt

-- he is a criminal who is killed in the course of committing a crime of his own-- in those cases the State won't indict and force the victim to prove the need for self-defense. --


What is Martin when he decks Zimmerman, then sits on him and bashes his head against the ground? That's criminal, is it not? Or does Martin have to be trying to rob, rape, or otherwise get more than a beating in order for the state to figure he is a criminal?


Extraneus

Yeah, because for all GZ knew, TM was just getting into a better position to continue the pounding.

If he only stood up and didn't back off, I would expect kicks to the head to ensue. That's the easiest way to finish someone off.

Chubby

narciso, I 've been listening to Hannity on the radio almost every day since the start of this debacle and he has been judicious and fair and constantly railing about the rush to judgment. He is very sympathetic toward Trayvon and interviews people and players from both sides. I find it interesting that Z would choose a right wing talk host instead of a left wing Democrat to bare his soul to. Guess that is one family of Democrats who have been rudely wrt their political leanings.

Cecil Turner

Is that ironclad 'reasonable' use of deadly force in self-defense?

In your hypothetical, where Martin is rising up (stopping the attack), and if GZ knows it, then no.

But the screaming went on for a long time, and there's no indication in the available evidence that Martin had any intention of stopping. If the forensics is for a contact shot, I see no way to conclude anything but a continuing attack. (And I'd guess that's ironclad, especially if the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn't.)

cboldt

The press accounts are amazing to me. Headline, "George Zimmerman's lawyers exit as vigilante killer flees"

Chubby

"rudely awakened"

NK

Bob-- self -defense does require the reasonable belief of being at risk of "serious injury", and here we are talking about using deadly force. Agreed, you don't have to suffer serious injury to justify using deadly force, but TMartin had no weapon, so a slap to the face with an open hand I think you agree would not justify deadly force. What crosses the line to justify deadly force? obviously more than a slap in the face, how much more?-- GZ would want evidence that his wounds were serious, I think we can all agree with that.

Extraneus

GZ would want evidence that his wounds were serious, I think we can all agree with that.

You're the one who keeps hammering that angle. He obviously doesn't have that evidence, or he'd have been hospitalized, and he obviously doesn't need it, or he'd have been arrested and charged on the spot.

cboldt

-- he is the mugger ... --


You can shoot muggers? On what basis? Use the same standard you are applying to justify charging Zimmerman (not saying that you advocate that, just that you are explaining how a prosecutor can reasonably charge). I see a disconnect between prosecutors routinely no-billing self defense because the attack is a mugging; and charging Zimmerman on any version of the public evidence.

DebinNC

A reminder of Trayvon's size

narciso

He was like a night watchmen, although more informal, this was his job, crikey the truth
doesn't matter anymore, (as if it ever did)

rse

Melinda-that sounds to me like steadman doesn't think corey will charge and he is reminding her inappropriately that he will second guess her decision.

Thugocracy.

Cecil Turner

GZ would want evidence that his wounds were serious, I think we can all agree with that.

The gun changes the calculus completely. I maintain that it was poor judgment for Zimmerman to be carrying the gun in this situation, but once it's there, letting someone beat you senseless isn't prudent.

Janet

I find it interesting that Z would choose a right wing talk host instead of a left wing Democrat to bare his soul to. Guess that is one family of Democrats who have been rudely wrt their political leanings.

It is like "journalists" & flotsam running to Israel for safety after being released from their Islamic abductors.

cboldt

-- self -defense does require the reasonable belief of being at risk of "serious injury", and here we are talking about using deadly force. --


With the "reasonable" part being a jury decision, and a measure of RISK, not of injury.

Scott

The latest comments get at the heart of this case. As Danube notes, the mere fact that Z made a claim is not as important as when, where and how he made the claim.

Whoever is on the 911 tape calling for help is in fear of something, and Z made the contemporaneous statement to the EMT and responding officer that it was him - without knowing it had been captured/recorded and without knowing how many witnesses had observed the entire incident. To an investigator, this means something.

And imagine the cross of the EMT: "As the only trained medical personnel to physically examine the defendant in proximity to the incident, how many more blows could he taken before he lost conciousness?"

The only new information that hurts Z, imho, is a witness who claims he started fight - and I don't mean "approached/verbally challenged/confronted Martin" - and even then, not sure how much it bears.

"Convict my client if your certain that, flat on your back being pounded by a guy who attacked you for merely following him through your neighborhood, you could have physically overpowered him and escaped (while maintaining security of your firearm) before he inflicted serious physical harm on you - or worse."

He walks, unless NK's "spineless politician" implicates (which is a coin flip.)

Clarice

While I continue to disagree with cboldt on Libby, I am in full agreement with him on this case.
And TM what was that Vizzini like riff on the 72 hour announcement anyway?

NK

apologies for my little hypothetical, they are an unfair rhetorical device, but I appreciate the answers. They were sincere, and they showed the range of possibilities. This is really a terrible tragedy; Martin is dead and GZ's life is ruined. How the State will and should proceed will be decided by small factual circumstances-- circumstances that on their own may be immaterial. Is that just? I have to disagree with cboldt one more time-- GZ was not the archetype self-defense victim here. He was following TMartin, GZ by his own admission was not the victim of a carjacking or home invasion. This is not an easy case for the State to no bill based on an archetypical victim.

Ignatz

--but once it's there, letting someone beat you senseless isn't prudent--

Trying to think of any prudent time for such a course of action.
No luck yet.

narciso

'Forget it he's rolling,' LOL

cboldt

-- GZ was not the archetype self-defense victim here. He was following TMartin, GZ by his own admission was not the victim of a carjacking or home invasion. --


I didn't ask you you to remark on those scenarios. I asked about mugging, and I asked whether or not Martin was a criminal for punching Zimmerman, decking him to the ground and then continuing to administer a beating.


I'm not disagreeing with you, I am asking you to explain how it can be consistent, to let admit self defense (no bill the case) in a mugging, or against a criminal, and not admit self defense to Zimmerman.


If you want to go back to "following," fine. But the self defense case starts much later than the following, to the extent that, in the legal analysis, the following is totally irrelevant - smoke.

NK

Mugging victim-- sorry I think the State's interests here are hugely different from the case of the elderly cash business owner who uses his licensed handgun when he is violently mugged taking cash to the bank, or the 110lbs woman who's Lexus is the object of a carjack by 2 large men.

Scott

NZ: GZ would want evidence that his wounds were serious, I think we can all agree with that.

Your task is proving fear of serious physical harm or death, and while actual serious phyiscal harm certainly helps, it is the circumstances tha support the fear:

Ive never been in a fist fight in my life, and he obviously had...

He hit me for merely following him, then pinned me to the ground and banged my head on pavement...

I had a gun, which could have been used against me...

He said " I'm going to beat your a**/kill you."

What will also be introduced by any potential defense is Martin's reaction to Z. Was it proportionate to being merely "followed?" If it wasn't proportionate, what did that portend in the mind of my client? What kind of person hits, then beats someone who merely followed them?

Hurdles...big hurdles.

Another Bob

NK, you keep searching for some bright line that doesn't exist. Why is that?

So long as variations of "beaten to death" show up on death certificates, presence of absence of a weapon is of limited importance.

If you were GZ and the facts are as most here think they are, would you be in fear of your life?

cboldt

-- think the State's interests here are hugely different from the case of the elderly cash business owner who uses his licensed handgun when he is violently mugged taking cash to the bank --


What about the victim's interests? Or does the state favor the person carrying money by allowing them to use force, while simultaneously charging anybody else with manslaughter for the same self defense.

DebinNC

What kind of person hits, then beats someone who merely followed them?

A teen male who want to impress the teen girl listening on his phone.

NK

Scott-- I can't see how the State proves unlawful killing beyond a reasonable doubt. as you say huge hurdles. But does that mean a prosecutor couldn't honestly believe they could prove BRD, and if they believe that, what stops the Special Prosecutor from deciding that the State's interests are best served by an indictment and trying the case? That's what GZ faces right now-- IMO.

cboldt

-- If you were GZ and the facts are as most here think they are, would you be in fear of your life? --


Would you think the law was justified in charging you with manslaughter? I think the answer NK is giving is Yes, it is reasonable for himself to be charged with manslaughter if he was similarly situated. It is not an unjust decision by the prosecutor, and can be easily justified.


The social message is that one must not use deadly force in that type of circumstance.

Cecil Turner

Trying to think of any prudent time for such a course of action.

We can agree to disagree on Zimmerman's carrying. But I think it's very unlikely Zimmerman would've been grievously injured in the absence of a weapon (with the cops enroute, "John" there already, and the flashlight carrying folks soon to arrive). The gun changes this from a garden-variety assault to a self-defense tragedy.

cboldt

Riffing from Cecil's speculation, I think Trayvon would have been charged with battery or aggravated battery, and Zimmerman may or may not have brought civil charges, if, while he shifted on the ground, Zimmerman hadn't revealed the pistol.

I think Zimmerman's actual fear of death came shortly after or with the verbal death threat -- which was prompted by view of the pistol -- coupled with Martin moving to disarm Zimmerman.

Porchlight

Cecil, Zimmerman had ZERO idea that the cops were coming anytime soon. Yes, "John" had called 911, but GZ didn't know that. Remember, all he did was report a stranger lurking around the property. Do you think the cops were going to rush right over?

All GZ knew was that he was crying for help and nobody was helping. Why wouldn't he also think that TM was going to have unlimited access to his skull and some concrete and finish the job?

Scott

NK, I have gotten your point (reality -v- desire) from the start, and agree that it may come to pass. But working with and for politicians, electability is the overriding concern. Acting in a manner to quell a short term problem (riots) and appease those not inclined to vote for you anyway leads, in this case, to looking incompetent in court, creating a serious long term problem with your constituents. Imagine a year from now when Corey gets primaried (because she is) and her challenger brings up the fact that she indicted an innocent man to appease a possible mob.

I have faith the facts, along with Corey's long term self interest, will win out.

NK

Bob-- I'm not searching for a brightline, this is all about the totality of the circumstances. And yes, personally I would have feared injury or death, and if I were a juror I would easily acquit based on what we know from the 'public' evidence.

fdcol63

What a crock of shit this argument is.

Even if GZ had known that the cops or some other help was gonna be there in 2-3 minutes when he was getting his head bashed in, he might still have been aware enough to think that TM might kill him in the next 30 seconds.

cboldt

-- Cecil, Zimmerman had ZERO idea that the cops were coming anytime soon. --


The call with dispatch has the police coming, they were going to contact Zimmerman on his cellphone to arrange a meeting location, as Z may have preconceived after he got back to his truck, he would move.

mojo

Yes, yes, all she needs to indict is probable cause - but prosecutors who indict when they don't feel they have enough evidence to win at trial tend not to keep their jobs long.

Cecil Turner

Do you think the cops were going to rush right over?

He'd arranged to meet 'em, Porch. And "John" claimed "I told him to stop and I was calling 911."

Porchlight

cboldt, yes, but my operative phrase was "anytime soon." He knew they were coming because he called them, but he had no guarantee of when. I don't imagine he thought they'd be in an enormous hurry based on the report he gave.

And he was never able to give them his exact location, correct? So for all he knew, they would have to find him in the rain and the dark.

cboldt

-- And he was never able to give them his exact location, correct? --


He gave them good directions to where his truck was - but I think he was planning to drive around looking.


Agreed on the "soon." He was in urgent desire for assistance, and as they say, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

MarkO

Dershowitz is merely suggesting the easy way out, the one I think the Special Prosecutor will take. They will charge him and expect a jury to free him. After all, criminal justice is an oxymoron.

Porchlight

He'd arranged to meet 'em, Porch. And "John" claimed "I told him to stop and I was calling 911."

That's no guarantee of anything. It could have been 30 minutes from the time the call ended when they came. Did Zimmerman say that he heard "John" state that 911 was on the way? If he didn't hear it, he's back at square one when he's waiting for cops to respond to his NON-EMERGENCY call. Why would he think they would show up in time to save him?

Porchlight

911 was on the way

s/b cops were on the way, sorry. Typing too fast.

I maintain that GZ had no reason to believe that police arrival was imminent. He had placed a non-emergency call.

fdcol63

" .. Why would he think they would show up in time to save him? .. "

Indeed. This is the essence of the self-defense claim. He was in imminent fear of losing his life.

NK

Scott's comments are very persuasive, because they point a further reality. The prosecutor's personal politicl stake, not just the State's interest in showing all citizens that they are protected by the law. I don't know how comforting it is to me if the prosecutor decides she's better off if a riot occurs now, than she would be with a quick acquital when she's in a primary. I assume she's above that.
Social messages? maybe the best social message here is that armed citzen watchers do the best service when they are alert, call 911 and act as a witness, not following a suspicious looking boy. Whatever happens, what GZ did that night turned out horribly wrong -- for everyone.

cboldt

-- If he didn't hear it, he's back at square one when he's waiting for cops to respond to his NON-EMERGENCY call. --


From memory, I think dispatch told Zimmerman that a cruiser was on the way.


Doesn't reduce his urgency on an imminent fear, of course. I can imagine justified use of deadly force while the police or other help is 20 feet away.

Porchlight

He was in urgent desire for assistance, and as they say, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Yes, exactly. That underlies so much of this whole story and the reason he was CCW in the first place.

Ignatz

--But I think it's very unlikely Zimmerman would've been grievously injured in the absence of a weapon--

--if, while he shifted on the ground, Zimmerman hadn't revealed the pistol--

We have only sketchy information from Zimmerman's father if and/or when Trayvon became aware Zimmerman was packing, correct? For all we know TM became aware the moment he was shot.
And absent that gun it's just as easy to speculate that TM was entirely serious about being Mr. No Limit and we'd have never heard of the sad case of poor brain damaged George Zimmerman down in Florida reduced to having his drool wiped off his lip by his mom the rest of his life.
Certainly many thousand gun free fights end in serious bodily harm every year.

James D.

Barring the revelation of new and convincing evidence, I don't honestly see how the prosecutor can in good conscience indict GZ.

The idea of sending this to a jury just to "kick the can" and temporarily appease the race hustlers and their frenzied mobs is appalling.

And the thought of forcing GZ and his family to bankrupt themselves paying for his defense and keeping them in the spotlight of a media frenzy for months, so that a jury can decide whether Trayvon was one foot or two feet away from GZ when the fatal shot was fired, and which unreliable, self-promoting voice expert they disbelieve the least, and determining whether GZ goes to jail for a decade or not based on that, ought to be horrifying to any decent person.

Porchlight

From memory, I think dispatch told Zimmerman that a cruiser was on the way

Isn't that kind of a standard signoff line for dispatchers? "We'll get someone out there right away" - that kind of thing. Well, I admit I don't know the answer to that. But as you say, none of it was any guarantee of there being help in time.

fdcol63

" ... Whatever happens, what GZ did that night turned out horribly wrong -- for everyone. ..."

It certainly contributed. But I think you're too quick to absolve TM of his own part in this.

He could have kept going to his residence, or he could have just stood there arguing with GZ, or he could have just continued evading GZ.

He didn't need to confront GZ, but he did.

bunkerbuster

Did Zimmerman exhibit a reasonable response to Martin?
I'd say the evidence on that question is a resounding NO.
It is utterly unreasonable for Zimmerman to tell police on the phone that Martin was an "asshole" and a "punk."
He had absolutely no evidence to make that claim. He did say that, though, and it's on tape and it's very relevant to both his credibility as someone capable of reasonably assessing what is going on around him and his desire to see Martin apprehended.
Nor was it reasonable for Zimmerman to get out of his truck in the rain AFTER calling police and AFTER they told him not to pursue. It was raining. He was on his way to the grocery store. The police said they were on their way. It's against neighborhood watch policy to pursue suspects.
Nor was it reasonable for Zimmerman to conduct neighborhood watch business while armed. He reportedly claims to be a "captain" in the group, so he knew the rule, which is no guns. Willfully breaking that rule is not reasonable.
It is certainly plausible that Zimmerman feared serious injury, once he came face to face with Martin. It's plausible, even, that he feared for his life.
What is beyond reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman behaved unreasonably toward Martin, from the outset. That makes it much more likely his decision to use lethal force was also unreasonable.
And if it was unreasonable, it wasn't self-defense.
Secondly, I think we're at last getting to the point where even the wingnuts are admitting probable cause is obvious in this case. And if probable cause is obvious, we have to question Sanford PD's motives.

Porchlight

Agreed, James D.

fdcol63

" ... Isn't that kind of a standard signoff line for dispatchers? "We'll get someone out there right away" ..."

Having actually been a police dispatcher and 911 operator, I can say "YES. It is."

James D.

Also, while the Florida law regarding self-defense may be overreaching, and while people may want to see Stand Your Ground repealed, there's a process for that.

GZ ought not be persecuted and crucified because some people don't like the law his actions appear to fall under.

And he certainly ought not be persecuted and crucified because Ben Crump or Al Sharpton or their hangers-on are looking for a big payday, or because Eric Holder is a racist bastard, or because President Zero needs to shore up his base, or because lying assholes at NBC, ABC and elsewhere in the MSM want to gin up ratings with a sensational story.

L Oookie

I believe the other learning is if someone is behind you and turns to go the other way it is best not to follow that person, hit them from behind, knock them to the ground, beat their head to the pavement, threaten to kill them and grab for a weapon.

If that Hispanic Democrat did not have his gun he most likely would be dead now.

Melinda Romanoff

rse-

I had no idea you speak "Cheekawgo".

hit and run

Here's the quote from the transcript:

Dispatcher: Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

bunkerbuster

It was perfectly reasonable, on the other hand, for Martin to suspect Zimmerman was a threat to him.
Zimmerman was clearly in a threat posture. He called the police, used expletives directed at Martin, cut sure his intended route to the store and left his vehicle, surely for the purpose of pursuing Martin. He was lethally armed. And he used that firearm to shoot Martin dead.
Was Martin reasonable to use force to defend himself from Martin? There can be no reasonable doubt that the answer is yes.

fdcol63

And just because you carry a CCW, you shouldn't have to worry that someone is going to snatch the gun from you and threaten your life with your own gun, if he's already sucker punched you in the nose and got you on the ground beating your head into the concrete.

hit and run

And earlier in the call:

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Another Bob

cboldt: "Would you think the law was justified in charging you with manslaughter?" If the facts are as most here believe, self defense is meaningless if a charge is justified here. YMMV.

NK: So if this is 'easy', why subject GZ to the legal process? Said process having very real cost to GZ no matter how it turns out. And arguably, the mobs have already forced GZ to pay a real price.

Cecil Turner

Isn't that kind of a standard signoff line for dispatchers? "We'll get someone out there right away"

Not in this case. There was a cruiser on the way that he'd requested (which was why he was trying to keep TM in sight . . . until they got there). He'd arranged to have 'em call him when they got there (which is one reason he may not have wanted to originate another call). He was making a lot of noise in the middle of a housing complex, and people were starting to show up.

It's hard for me to evaluate the relative danger because they're both such wimps. But I doubt it'd have been life-threatening in the available time in the absence of a gun.

Porchlight

Having actually been a police dispatcher and 911 operator, I can say "YES. It is."

Thanks, fdcol63.

DebinNC

or because lying assholes at NBC, ABC and elsewhere in the MSM want to gin up ratings with a sensational story.

As with the OJ verdict, I picture the drive-bys in deep discussions over which historically black colleges win the coveted live reaction spots during the Corey presser. Will there be ecstatic whoops of joy or anguished crying? A sure ratings winner, especially for whichever network is the top bidder to watch the decision with the Fulton-Martin-Crump contingent.


Extraneus

GZ ought not be persecuted and crucified because some people don't like the law his actions appear to fall under.

Good point, except that the case has nothing to do with SYG. No one claims that GZ was standing his ground.

Porchlight

Cecil, I still don't see how that is a guarantee of help in time when one is being attacked. "Oh, well, the cops will be here any minute, they said they were on the way, I'm sure this guy won't go for my gun or anything, I'm just going to hang out and take the punches until they get here."

Come on.

Threadkiller

"It was perfectly reasonable, on the other hand, for Martin to suspect Zimmerman was a threat to him. Zimmerman was clearly in a threat posture. He called the police..."

Most identity criminals perceive a phone call to the police as a threat.

James D.

Ext, that's factually true, but this case is being used as an example by opponents of SYG laws, and it's being reported that way in the MSM.

which says, to me, means that people who oppose SYG laws are fanning the flames in this case, and persecuting GZ - even though, as you say, SYG doesn't apply here -to further their political goals.

And if GZ is wrongly prosecuted, or his family has to remian in hiding for the next two years, or somebody tries to burn down their house, well, too bad, as long as the correct narative gets reported.

bunkerbuster

TK, yeah, when someone calls the police, tells them you're an "asshole" and a "punk" for just walking around the neighborhood, that's a threat, for sure...
It's kind of amazing that you'd think it isn't. Does that assessment have anything to do with Martin's skin color?

Cecil Turner


Good point, except that the case has nothing to do with SYG.

The SYG law is what kept 'em from arresting Zimmerman:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force [. . .] As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
The SYG clause has nothing to do with the case, but the SYG law has everything to do with it.

Extraneus

I don't know about anyone else here, but I grew up in NYC during a time when fights often ended with one person unconscious and bloody, having had his head and face and teeth kicked and bounced off the sidewalk or a curb until he wasn't moving anymore. If it's anything like that these days in the part of Florida where this took place, all the talk about how Zimmerman should have remained calm and just held on until the police got there is idle speculation.

PDinDetroit

I maintain that it was poor judgment for Zimmerman to be carrying the gun in this situation

I maintain that a Person has a Right to Life and a Right to Protect Such Life. There are no "magical zones" where a person is safe from attack, so Carrying a Firearm is one way to defend from attacks.

Another Bob

I'm sure this is a waste of time bubu, but what threat was GZ making to TM that would justify TM initiating a fight?

Cecil Turner

TK, yeah, when someone calls the police, tells them you're an "asshole" and a "punk" for just walking around the neighborhood, that's a threat, for sure...

Ah, the ol' "he badmouthed me to the police" defense. Which TM knew about (because he's a mindreader). Of course.

BuBu, this is dim, even for you

Extraneus

The SYG clause has nothing to do with the case, but the SYG law has everything to do with it.

Thanks for the clarification, Cecil.

Cecil Turner

You're welcome, Ext.

I maintain that a Person has a Right to Life and a Right to Protect Such Life.

No argument he has the right. Just think he wishes now he hadn't exercised it in that particular fashion.

Gus

How did Skittles know that Whitey had bad mouthed him??


I think Whitey must go free like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, because SKITTLES was clearly wiretapping Whitey's phone!!

ButtBuddy Bubu, I'm ridiculing you!!!

Threadkiller

Ig, I am warming up to your theory that Sideshow Bunk is a creation of TM.

Bruce

It was perfectly reasonable, on the other hand, for Martin to suspect Zimmerman was a threat to him.
Zimmerman was clearly in a threat posture. He called the police, used expletives directed at Martin, cut sure his intended route to the store and left his vehicle, surely for the purpose of pursuing Martin. He was lethally armed. And he used that firearm to shoot Martin dead.
Was Martin reasonable to use force to defend himself from Martin? There can be no reasonable doubt that the answer is yes.

Half this is made up, and the rest either irrelevant or ridiculous. And, no, it was not reasonable for Martin to use force, unless you can show that Zimmerman swung first.

PDinDetroit

Just think he wishes now he hadn't exercised it in that particular fashion.

Yeah, I'm sure he would rather be "nodding and drooling" from the the brain injury that likely could happen if Martin was allowed to continue beating on him.

hit and run

when someone calls the police, tells them you're an "asshole" and a "punk"

So you are convinced that Zimmerman did not use the "c" word in the infamous "fvcking [unintelligible]" part of the call?

Are you sure it was punks? How sure, and why?

And how in the world do you think TM could have possibly heard that? Zimmerman basically said it under his breath and at that point and TM was running.

derwill

So in Bubu's world, Martin was justified in knocking Z onto his back and bashing his head repeatedly into the sidewalk, because Z called him a punk and an asshole and--horrors!--called the police. OTH Z was totally not justified in shooting M while he was getting his head bashed into the sidewalk, and possibly having M threatening to kill him with the exposed gun.

The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me. "Justice" is only all about where you fall in the higharchy of victimhood. In this case black trumps hispanic. Enuff said. Lynch the SOB.

PDinDetroit

All this talk about the Police showing up and "saving the day" is interesting. I refer you to the following cases that might provide some interesting information for you here.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Warren v. District of Columbia

Google these, see what you get...

Gus

derwill, the LIBTARD mind has never been taught to critically think. It has been taught WHAT TO THINK and WHOM TO FAVOR for political purposes. It's a recipe for STUPID.

Ignatz

--It's hard for me to evaluate the relative danger because they're both such wimps. But I doubt it'd have been life-threatening in the available time in the absence of a gun.--

Wimps?
A guy gets out of his pickup and the kid, in a place he's only visiting, sucker punches a total stranger breaking his nose and pounding his head into the concrete.
And off the top of my head I can quickly recall two deceased people I have personally known who doubted things were going to get life threatening in the absence of a gun.

DebinNC

I'm sure Trayvon told DeeDee, "A portly, White-Hispanic fellow seems to be inexplicably following me."

Gus

IMAGINE if you will, that Whitey Zimmerman had punched Skittles Martin, breaking his nose, and then pounded SKITTLES head into the pavement.

Would our LIBTARD morons believe Skittles was justified in shooting Whitey?

No brainer.

Ignatz

--Ig, I am warming up to your theory that Sideshow Bunk is a creation of TM.--

Yeah but he's running out of material TK.
He's just phoning it in now.
TM isn't getting fair value for money.

cboldt

More Dersh. He says it is likely there will be a charge / indictment.

If [Zimmerman] had hired competent lawyers and followed their advice, the former neighborhood watch captain might well have beat the manslaughter rap likely to come his way for the killing of Trayvon Martin. ...

The special prosecutor has now announced that she will issue a statement soon. This statement may disclose whether she plans to indict and arrest Zimmerman — a likely outcome.

Bruce

I maintain that it was poor judgment for Zimmerman to be carrying the gun in this situation

Let me suggest that you are likely not living in a part of the country where people being armed is common. It doesn't strike me as weird or uncommon in the least. I still look twice when I see someone open carry, as I did some guy with a crotch rocket recently in Phoenix. But concealed? No. But, better than a decade ago, I had to deal with concealed carry in a plant there, made esp. troublesome by a home office in Boston, which didn't understand local customs, and was totally freaked out by the thought that one of their engineers might possibly bring a gun into work - when it had been happening routinely and commonly among them for years.

I maintain that a Person has a Right to Life and a Right to Protect Such Life. There are no "magical zones" where a person is safe from attack, so Carrying a Firearm is one way to defend from attacks.

But, but, but, we know from a lot of posters here that carrying a firearm is a provocation to being physically assaulted, and that, apparently, that provocation is sufficient to justify beating the person carrying the gun into unconsciousness. Or, maybe not quite that far, but at least justification for beating him. Something like that.

Porchlight

Just think he wishes now he hadn't exercised it in that particular fashion.

I suspect that Zimmerman's personal anguish over the situation is immense. I'm pretty certain he didn't want to kill someone that night, despite what morons like bubu think. Most people have regrets after these kinds of events happen. Mugging victims wish they hadn't taken that shortcut down the alley. People who shoot burglars to death in their homes in the middle of the night wish they'd decided to go visit the grandkids that weekend instead of staying in town.

But that has no bearing on the legal justification for Zimmerman's actions, and any such regret also happens to be contingent on the fact that he's still alive and sentient enough to have regrets.

Gus

Bring on the indictment Corey. This will merely delay the RIOTS and BURNINGS. When Zimmerman is acquitted, and he WILL be acquitted, then the fun begins, then COREY gives the Rodney King PRESSER.

"Can't we all just get along.....that's what TRAYVON a.k.a. SKITTLES would have wanted"

Gus

Bruce, I agree. Had Whitey not had his gun, it's quite possible that SKITTLES would have continued bludgeoning Whitey with the sidewalk. There is ZERO evidence of Zimmerman creating ANY VIOLENCE.

Captain Hate

TM isn't getting fair value for money.

Ask him some geography questions.

Chubby

there is a picture of Trayvon supporters at the CNN link lun

one of their signs reads: STAND YOUR GROUND = KILL AT WILL

DebinNC

CNN legal analyst has a piece today advocating Corey let a jury decide. It also contains this:

In discussing the investigation into the shooting death of Martin she [Angela Corey] said, "What we are asking people to do is take a step back. Pray for Trayvon. Pray for his family. Listen to their words. I believe these are wonderful people who are asking for a peaceful approach to this case, while still demanding the answers they deserve. And I look forward to meeting with them to try to help them on this journey. Our victims always have a tough plight."

That may be the loveliest statement I've ever seen from a prosecutor.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame