"He doesn't claim that Martin "confronted" him"

Yes he does.

The relevant point is that he claims Martin battered him. It isn't Zimmerman's claim that Martin merely confronted him, and so Zimmerman shot Martin.

But you knew that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I get really tired of hearing the unarmed kid meme casually thrown around. Whether he is armed or not is irrelevant. Now had TM been armed, that would definitely lean in GZ's favor. But I have seen unarmed kids do serious damage to other unarmed and even armed individuals. And by the time the threat presented by an unarmed individual can be absolutely determined, it would likely be too late. If we go by the testimony that GZ was being attacked with TM on top, as supported by eyewitness testimony and trauma to GZ. It was getting close to being too late. In fact, many states have a point where self defense becomes assault. When I was a teenager in Virginia training in boxing, Karate, and kick boxing. We were told that once a man is down, defined by one knee down, he is no longer a threat in the eyes of the law. This assumes no projectiles. So any attacks on a grounded person are no longer defense, but assault. ONce the knees left the ground he was fair game, but until then he was not a threat and could not be struck. I don't even know if that is the law here as I have no intention of getting into a ground fight with somebody nor would I strike somebody on the ground in a fight. But if that is a similar law here, TM was now assaulting GZ if TM was himself defending himself under stand your ground.

Let's also not forget that under testimony, GZ stated that TM made motions that suggested he had a gun. This is not uncommon in the street culture or among trained people. In womens self defense classes, they are tought to signal they have a weapon even if they don't to potential attackers. It would make sense for TM to do such a thing if he perceived a threat. But this is where common sense in the street can have real consequences witht he law. As many justified shooting originated from the dead guy initially hinting they had a weapon when they did or didn't. Usually with a lot of witnesses present. This is just a case where there are no witnesses.

I have no problem with it going to trial. In fact, I'm hoping a lot fo things get cleared up. It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high and the scenario will play out as Kahuna has stated.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

You're telling someone they are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong, and are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong. He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I think you were trying to reply to my response to you, but, it did not show up in your post.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
>So let's apply this clarification to your opinion in #62 that "the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force." By "the circumstances as a whole," you didn't really mean all the circumstances, but rather one particular subset of them?

I don't understand what you're asking. I initially used poor wording to explain my assertion that there was a long sequence of poor decisions and miscalculations (possibly by both parties) that escalated what should have been a mundane, everyday situation.

I think some posters in this thread have depraved minds!!!!

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

You're telling someone they are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong, and are getting Zimmerman's facts wrong.

I was telling jpo that he was misrepresenting Zimmerman's story when he characterized Zimmerman's claim as being "Martin confronted Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot Martin." See, because that makes it sound like Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin just because Martin "confronted" him. When the reality is that Zimmerman isn't claiming that at all- he's claiming that he shot Martin because Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground.

But, again, you knew that.

He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

My moronishness aside, I'm not making a case in support of Zimmerman.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

 >It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high

I agree, there.

For better or worse, we sometimes seem to reward our DAs for high profile convictions of any kind, rather than "justice."

He does claim Martin confronted him, it's a relevant point. And to be quite frank, you're a moron for leaving it out of your case in support of Zimmerman because it would help show that Martin initiated the incident.

You're not reading very carefully. In post #4, vitus already acknowledged that according to Zimmerman's statement, he was confronted by Martin.

The post to which you objected was #9, where vitus stated:

"He doesn't claim that Martin 'confronted' him, for example. He claims that Martin hit his head against the sidewalk repeatedly."

The quotation marks are important. If I'm interpreting him correctly, vitus is saying that Martin didn't use the vague word "confront," but much more specific language specifying the violent nature of that confrontation.

EDIT TO ADD: I haven't read the actual statement, so I don't know myself what language Z used.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I agree with trail. That is the way I see it as well. The rub for me is -- what is the appropriate level of accountability? I dunno, but, it sure as hell isn't second degree murder (a point trail makes in his post, which I quoted above, and earlier in this thread).

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'm trying but my computer is jacking with me. :)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Very true and unfortunate. I never lost a case as a prosecutor and, for the most part, that is the way it should be. My boss at the time used to say something to the effect - "A prosecutor should NEVER lose a case. YOU control the charge and YOU determine which cases actually go to trial. You do so after gathering all the evidence. With that much control in your hands, you should never lose."

Obviously, juries can do funny things, so, there is no guarantee. But, I never lost sight of that guidance and, as a result, I never lost a case as a prosecutor and that never required me to back down from a difficult case. I also never over-charged with the hope of reaching a plea.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You have read the jury instructions. I'm assuming you have seen the instructions regarding the new FL self-defense law. Can you post those too?

That makes three of us on the overcharging. His actions, if they do not fall under the self-defense excuse, probably align with the FL manslaughter law. But we all know that almost every prosecutor in the country over charges. It is just the way it goes.

Above you mentioned element 2 of the 2nd degree murder instructions and the criminality of the act that killed Martin. There is no doubt that there was an altercation. But if the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the altercation then his claims of self-defense are not valid. That is where the act becomes criminal.

The only point I have been making the whole way through this thread is that there is in fact enough probable cause to take this in front of a jury.

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong. Apparently his hoodie means he is a thug, of course virtually every high school and college kid wears hoodies. Above someone states something along the line that given his history he was saved from a life of crime, are you fucking serious? Another post says he was probably casing the neighborhood, what evidence is there of that?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong.

But nobody claims that.

People claim that Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin and to report him to the police as a suspicious person.

People claim that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin if Martin was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground, unprovoked.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Here is the actual statute -

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
F.S. §776.013(3)

Here is what it means -

Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law
The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

1. The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
2. The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.
In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Quote:

His actions, if they do not fall under the self-defense excuse, probably align with the FL manslaughter law.

I agree, IF they do not fall under self-defense.

Quote:

But we all know that almost every prosecutor in the country over charges. It is just the way it goes.

I do not agree with this. This is a dangerous game that only pays off for the prosecutor if the state allows less-included offenses to be considered by the jury even if not asserted by the prosecution.

Quote:

Above you mentioned element 2 of the 2nd degree murder instructions and the criminality of the act that killed Martin. There is no doubt that there was an altercation. But if the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the altercation then his claims of self-defense are not valid. That is where the act becomes criminal.

You are confusing what you think the facts will prove and what the affidavit asserts. What one needs to focus on is what the affidavit asserts. There is no assertion of that conclusion, which needs to be present in the affidavit to create probable cause.

Quote:

The only point I have been making the whole way through this thread is that there is in fact enough probable cause to take this in front of a jury.

On the charge of murder 2? This is just my opinion, based on years of experience, including as a former prosecutor, no, there isn't. The prosecutor controls every work in that affidavit. This one is no good.

Quote:

What I find disturbing is the number of people who will vehemently defend Zimmerman's right to kill a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong. Apparently his hoodie means he is a thug, of course virtually every high school and college kid wears hoodies. Above someone states something along the line that given his history he was saved from a life of crime, are you fucking serious? Another post says he was probably casing the neighborhood, what evidence is there of that?

I understand and agree with you here. My son wears a lot of hoodies. So do I. Of course with his dark-ish Mexican skin, he looks a little more threatening to people than I. Unfortunate, but, true. I tend to completely agree with trail (and others) on this point. There should be some consequences for Zimmerman, but, not murder 2.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Like I said in another thread. When all is said and done prosecutors are evaluated heaviest on one criteria. Winning cases. That is why they would always rather plea a deal. And the ethics or manner they use don't really seem to matter as long as a judge signs off on it. Cops have the same mentality. Their job is to close cases and arrest people. At least that is what they are generally weighed on the most in most departments. In any of these scenarios if justice is served, great. If an injustice occurs and the person arrested, charged, and locked up later is found not guilty on appeal, or some other reason. It is outside of the the prosecutor or policeman's hands. Nor is their performance weighed against it.

This is what happens when a society relies more on laws and rules to maintain order instead of morals/ethics and mutually beneficial interaction. We become less in tune on a personal level with what is right and wrong, and more on what is allowed by law. I've seen comments here by former prosecutors that prove my point. They have/had no problem introducing evidence that was inconclusive if it might help their case and the judge allows it. I don't fault them for it, I fault the reasons previously described.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

What you wrote doesn't seem to be fitting what you meant, but then again I'm quibbling with someone on an internet message board.

There should be some consequences for Zimmerman, but, not murder 2.

For what crime?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But Martin DID confront him. And THEN he (according to Zimmerman, and I think witnesses) curbed him.

Since there is no evidence at all that Martin was doing anything wrong here specifically are some of the quotes that disturb me:
"Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. "
"What would he need to be casing the neighborhood? "
"Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself. "


The sentence that you reference cannot be taken by itself without the rest of the paragraph. If Zimmerman had not chased/followed/tailed a kid that was on a candy run there would not have been any contact between the two. But for his actions this would not have occurred.

You start with an innocent kid, add Zimmerman following him, and if we take Zimmerman's account as true (and I'll even sanitize the bejesus out of it) that apparently angered Martin (as I think it would most of us), a confrontation followed, somewhere along the line Zimmerman was getting the worst of it, Martin got shot and killed. You still started with "a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

"You are confusing what you think the facts will prove and what the affidavit asserts. What one needs to focus on is what the affidavit asserts. There is no assertion of that conclusion, which needs to be present in the affidavit to create probable cause. "

But there is.

From the affadavit:
"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. ...Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice."

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Since there is no evidence at all that Martin was doing anything wrong here specifically are some of the quotes that disturb me:
"Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run. "
"What would he need to be casing the neighborhood? "
"Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself. "

Disturbing as those quotes may be, I still say nobody is saying that Zimmerman had a right to shoot an innocent kid- if Zimmerman was simply claiming that he shot Martin absent Martin's attack on him, nobody would argue that the shooting was justified. I think that saying people are defending Zimmerman's right to shoot a kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong is just basically dishonest.


The sentence that you reference cannot be taken by itself without the rest of the paragraph. If Zimmerman had not chased/followed/tailed a kid that was on a candy run there would not have been any contact between the two. But for his actions this would not have occurred.

It doesn't matter. If Zimmerman was sick in bed that day, none of this would have happened, true. That doesn't mean that following Martin was a crime, and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's attack on him.

You still started with "a kid that there is absolutely no reason to think he was doing anything wrong."

You started there, but you progressed to "a kid who was beating Zimmerman's head against the ground without justification."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I am not sure criminal charges should be filed at all. Perhaps a wrongful death civil suit. I dunno. I don't have the luxury of having all the facts (neither does anyone else on this site). But, a series of poor and/or questionable decisions lead to the death of a young male. IMO, there should be consequences for that (note my carefully chosen word). What those consequences should be is best left to those with all the facts.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR