Zimmerman Not guilty

[MobBoss]

Why would you even approach a kid that you don't know armed with a gun if he's not breaking into a house or something?

The question is literally moot since this is not unlawful. Z doing this simply isn't against the law.

An armed guy in a car following me for no apparent reason? That sounds like it constitutes a pretty big threat to my safety. At the least, it constitutes stalking.

If he's in the car how do you know he is armed?

And no, i'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet the legal definition of the charge of stalking. Again, following someone in your car is not against the law, and you sure aren't allowed to attack someone simply because of it occurring.

 

[Archbob]

Actually, if you followed. Zimmerman exited his vehicle and pursued Martin on foot carrying his gun despite the 911 dispatcher telling him not too. Pursuing another civilian on foot armed with a gun? Is that legal in Florida also?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think people are assuming Z and M had each other in sight as M approached him to ask questions. Z didn't know where M was and the latter came at Z from behind

So, the defence claimed that Zimmerman followed Martin, lost him, then suddenly had Martin confront him from behind? Did I get that right? Is that actually established by the court, or did the court claim that it can't definitely disprove this version of events?

-------------------

I'm usually sympathetic to self-defence claims, but if you follow someone with a loaded gun, you really should be held responsible if you use this gun to kill that someone later. This shows that you accepted the possibility of that killing. Don't see how it was acceptable in this case.

Pursuing another civilian on foot armed with a gun? Is that legal in Florida also?

This, at least, should place the burden of proof on the pursuer. You were accepting the possibility of killing, show the court why it was justified.

 

[El_Machinae]

The whole thing is a mess. I found out that Canadian law has the same burden of proof Zimmerman had: apparently, once it's "reasonable to suspect" that the attack was done out of self-defense, then the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

That "reasonable to suspect" is a very low burden to meet, actually. Much lower than the balance of probabilities used in civil court. I guess the jury bought the idea that Zimmerman was acting legally, and that Martin initiated the illegal portion of the encounter.

 

[Lone Wolf]

apparently, once it's "reasonable to suspect" that the attack was done out of self-defense, then the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self-defense.
That "reasonable to suspect" is a very low burden to meet, actually.

Sounds quite screwed up here. I'm usually sympathetic to people who shoot burglars, intruders and stuff, since I can see how sudden stress can cause you to legitimately overestimate the danger, but Martin was neither by any stretch of imagination. There's a difference between "I find an intruder in my house, I go after him with a gun" and "I find some random guy acting suspiciously on the street, I go after him with a gun". The latter case shows murderous attitudes with no reasonable justification.

 

[Yeekim]

Or, apparently like Berzerker, do you think it is perfectly acceptable to racially profile, stalk, and kill innocent black teens merely because they were walking while black in a neighborhood where some of the break-ins were known to be committed by young blacks?

It IS perfectly acceptable to profile and follow a teen of ANY race, if he is walking in a neighborhood where some of the break-ins are known to be committed by young people of that race.
That is, er, common sense.

And it is acceptable to kill someone who decides to jump you.
He was not killed for "walking while black", he was killed because he decided to violently confront his pursuer.

Why was he tailing Martin in the first place? He's in a car, call the cops and then drive away. Don't follow him, get out of your car, and confront him. I'd be scared if someone was tailing me in a car, probably think he wants to take me out. Not shocked at all than a scared 14-year old kid tried to take him out before some creepy guy tailing you in a car takes you out.

You don't have the right(if your not a cop) to tail random teenagers, and then tell them to "stand down" while armed, especially if they haven't done anything.

Wasn't he 17? That is quite a difference.
Also, why should I even call the police for someone walking by? If he indeed looks suspicious, then why is it unacceptable to call out and ask: "Hey, I haven't seen you around, who are you and what are you doing?". To which normal people reply "Dude, I live just next door and was just going shopping." Definitely don't start throwing punches around - and if you do, you bloody well need to meet someone with a gun.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It IS perfectly acceptable to profile and follow a teen of ANY race, if he is walking in a neighborhood where some of the break-ins are known to be committed by young people of that race.
That is, er, common sense.

Dunno, if here in Russia there were some incidents of perfectly-Slavic looking teens doing bad stuff in my neighborhood, is it really reasonable to start following with suspicion the majority of teenagers around? Or to pick a teen at random and start following him, with a loaded weapon none the less?

He was not killed for "walking while black", he was killed because he decided to violently confront his pursuer.

I think that if Martin survived, there would be grounds for prosecuting him, but it was not he who was on trial.

 

[Yeekim]

Dunno, if here in Russia there were some incidents of perfectly-Slavic looking teens doing bad stuff in my neighborhood, is it really reasonable to start following with suspicion the majority of teenagers around? Or to pick a teen at random and start following him, with a loaded weapon none the less?

If it is a small neighborhood and you expect to know a majority of your neighbors and you've recently had break-ins and you see strangers wander seemingly aimlessly - then yes. Why wouldn't it be reasonable? Is the concept of neighborhood watch really unknown in Russia?
That's what people do here, in any case...

 

[Dachs]

If it is a small neighborhood and you expect to know a majority of your neighbors and you've recently had break-ins and you see strangers wander seemingly aimlessly - then yes. Why wouldn't it be reasonable? Is the concept of neighborhood watch really unknown in Russia?
That's what people do here, in any case...

See, you went from "racial profiling" to "strangers wandering around".

 

[El_Machinae]

no, he started at 'teens'

 

[Yeekim]

See, you went from "racial profiling" to "strangers wandering around".

I was answering to Lone Wolf that yes, people can be profiled even when everybody is of the same race and it often makes perfect sense.

If there had been a problem with ginger burglars and Z would have taken notice of a redhead, would you also make a big deal of "profiling"?

 

[Lone Wolf]

If it is a small neighborhood and you expect to know a majority of your neighbors and you've recently had break-ins and you see strangers wander seemingly aimlessly - then yes.

Starting confrontations with strangers - even mild confrontations - with a loaded gun? Anyone who does so is overly aggressive-paranoid, unless the stranger is picking locks or displays blatantly aggressive behaviour. Seems completely irresponsible to use weapons in such a way. From what I see about the case, it seems that both "Z" and "M", had he survived, should've been somehow punished.

Is the concept of neighborhood watch really unknown in Russia?

I'm trying to translate that American concept of "neighbourhood" to realities of Russian cities like my native 1 400 000-pop regional capital, and failing. The level of familiarity it suggests seems something between the level of common stair/stairwell and a single large apartment block, closer to the former.

If there had been a problem with ginger burglars and Z would have taken notice of a redhead, would you also make a big deal of "profiling"?

If Zimmerman decided that he needs a loaded gun to do something with this redhead?..

See, you went from "racial profiling" to "strangers wandering around".

I think that "strangers wandering around" is even worse then "racial profiling", in terms of consequences, to be honest. At least, the latter establishes some kind of limit on suspicion.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If there had been a problem with ginger burglars and Z would have taken notice of a redhead, would you also make a big deal of "profiling"?

Yes. One is innocent until proven guilty. The mistake of wrongfully treating an innocent person as guilty is far worse than treating a guilty person as innocent.

Profiling is useful and acceptable only when it is concerned with behaviors. Suspicious behaviors make one suspicious, but even those are just suspicions, and not proof of anything. They make one worthy of further investigation. If Zimmerman observed Martin behaving suspicious, like he was looking in peoples' windows or walking around trying peoples' doors or something, then there would be further cause for concern. But the fact that a black boy is walking down a street where houses have been burglarized by black men before is not sufficient grounds for suspicion, because at that point you begin to attribute motives to him based upon his race or outward appearance, and that is unjust.

 

[Yeekim]

Starting confrontations with strangers - even mild confrontations - with a loaded gun? Anyone who does so is overly aggressive-paranoid, unless the stranger is picking locks or displays blatantly aggressive behaviour. Seems completely irresponsible to use weapons in such a way. From what I see about the case, it seems that both "Z" and "M", had he survived, should've been somehow punished.

It is apparently not certain who really started the confrontation, but as long as he did not wave his gun around, I can´t see how having it changes anything at all.

I'm trying to translate that American concept of "neighbourhood" to realities of Russian cities like my native 1 400 000-pop regional capital, and failing. The level of familiarity it suggests seems something between the level of common stair/stairwell and a single large apartment block, closer to the former.

Something like a dacha-village, perhaps?

If Zimmerman decided that he needs a loaded gun to do something with this redhead?..

If he had a gun with him, should he have specifically left it behind? After all, it proved to be exactly the kind of situation where having a gun was useful: he got attacked.

I think that "strangers wandering around" is even worse then "racial profiling", in terms of consequences, to be honest. At least, the latter establishes some kind of limit on suspicion.

Yes. One is innocent until proven guilty. The mistake of wrongfully treating an innocent person as guilty is far worse than treating a guilty person as innocent.

Profiling is useful and acceptable only when it is concerned with behaviors. Suspicious behaviors make one suspicious, but even those are just suspicions, and not proof of anything. They make one worthy of further investigation. If Zimmerman observed Martin behaving suspicious, like he was looking in peoples' windows or walking around trying peoples' doors or something, then there would be further cause for concern. But the fact that a black boy is walking down a street where houses have been burglarized by black men before is not sufficient grounds for suspicion, because at that point you begin to attribute motives to him based upon his race or outward appearance, and that is unjust.

Asking someone who he is and what is his business is not treating someone as guilty. Goes without saying that one needs to be civil while doing so, but it is often a justified question.

And sure, you have to take account behavior. But that is very subtle. A person "just walking down the street" may very obviously be suspect. I used to have a summer job working as a clerk in a store while back in high school. Also had to perform as security and after a while, recognizing someone up to no good often became easy.

Just a few weeks ago, I went to small supermarket before work to buy some fruit and there was a guy standing in the coffee aisle. I was in a good mood and quietly remarked: "Dude, you are WAY too obvious" while walking by him. He was caught while trying to run out the door with some stuff while I was standing in queue at the counter. Now, technically, all he ever DID when I saw him was standing and trying his best to look like an apprehensive customer trying to pick the best brand.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So, the defence claimed that Zimmerman followed Martin, lost him, then suddenly had Martin confront him from behind? Did I get that right? Is that actually established by the court, or did the court claim that it can't definitely disprove this version of events?

Nope. The defense never claimed that. But for some odd reason, that is what Berzerker insists must have happened.

It IS perfectly acceptable to profile and follow a teen of ANY race, if he is walking in a neighborhood where some of the break-ins are known to be committed by young people of that race.
That is, er, common sense..

What is "common sense" is staying in your car instead of stalking and confronting a scared teen on a dark and rainy night. Your version isn't actually "common sense" at all. It is just the opposite.

And it is acceptable to kill someone who decides to jump you.
He was not killed for "walking while black", he was killed because he decided to violently confront his pursuer.

It might be "acceptable" to you to kill someone who is merely trying to defend himself from a stranger who continues to pursue him for no apaparent reason. But it certainly isn't to me and many others. That is why the state of Florida tried to convict him of second degree murder or manslaughter.

And you have no idea who tried to "violently confront" whom. That is sheer speculation on your part based on the statements of a known serial liar.

Also, why should I even call the police for someone walking by? If he indeed looks suspicious, then why is it unacceptable to call out and ask: "Hey, I haven't seen you around, who are you and what are you doing?". To which normal people reply "Dude, I live just next door and was just going shopping." Definitely don't start throwing punches around - and if you do, you bloody well need to meet someone with a gun.

Well, duh. And guess what Zimmerman clearly didn't do despite having numerous opportunities.

Do you know anything at all about this case?

If it is a small neighborhood and you expect to know a majority of your neighbors and you've recently had break-ins and you see strangers wander seemingly aimlessly - then yes. Why wouldn't it be reasonable? Is the concept of neighborhood watch really unknown in Russia?
That's what people do here, in any case...

He wasn't "wandering around aimlessly". He was talking to his friend out of the rain at the mailbox kiosk. Again, you are just parroting the statements of a known liar which were shown to be false.

 

[Yeekim]

Nope. The defense never claimed that. But for some odd reason, that is what Berzerker insists must have happened.

I knew nothing of the case after I last read about it on CFC, so I googled and that apparently was Z's version:

Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[184] The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere," "from the darkness," and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes."[184][185] Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.[188]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
EDIT in answer of the rest of the post:
Looks like the jurors found this version believable, so do I.
"Scared teens" do not beautify other peoples' faces like this:

Spoiler :

 

[Formaldehyde]

Notice it says absolutely nothing about appearing "behind" him. It is also refuted in Zimmerman's own walkthrough with the police. Zimmerman claims that Martin walked north to the T towards him as he was watching him do so, not from "behind" him.

And yes, Zimmerman did keep changing his story until he came up with a version that wouldn't be directly contradicted by the facts as the article points out.

And yes, perhaps Martin did hit a scary stalker in the face once. Wouldn't you if you thought your life might be threatened by some stranger who weighs 40 pounds more than you do who keeps following you for no apparent reason?

Why is it so obvious to you that Zimmerman can defend himself while Martin can't?

Why do you keep making so many statements as though they are factual which have been shown to be lies?

 

[Tarquelne]

That "reasonable to suspect" is a very low burden to meet, actually.

Rather than "Stand Your Ground" can we call it the "Last Man Standing" law?

 

[REDY]

Funny is that it happened to me and friends just two days ago. We have been asked what we are doing in this part of city by gypsies. When we assured that we are not racist skinheads everything was alright and we now know each other much more.

Its not common in the Czech Republic have loaded gun but I think its quite common in USA.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It isn't all that common at all. Even in Florida, there are a bit over one million permits with a population of 19 million. How many of those carry a firearm wherever they go?

For instance, my brother does a lot of traveling for his job. So he keeps a gun in his car in case it breaks down. But he has a concealed carry permit anyway.