That's a red herring, JJ. You are trying to make the argument about the definition of "struggle". Explain how M held Z down for 40 seconds of screaming help without leaving any trace evidence of the 'encounter'. Explain why Z would scream for his life for 40 seconds but not go for his gun sooner?
Ahh, it's the old "move the goalposts method of argument. Let's go back to your specific statement that I was responding to. I could care less about the "evidence" because that was NOT what you or I were talking about. Here's your line: You're confusing to major issues. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and someone comes up and proves that they are imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, I have NO duty to retreat. That is Florida state law, and even your website you linked agrees with me on that. The issue you're confusing, is if I am the aggressor and the tables get turned on me. At that point, I have to "recover my innocence," which means I now have either (1) remove myself from the situation and have him follow me, which reestablishes a new situation that he is now the aggressor in, thus, "stand your ground" is completely reestablished, or (2) be put in a situation where I can no longer be a threat, and yet the threat upon me continues. With that said, you are assuming that he was the aggressor. Just walking behind a guy does NOT make him the aggressor, whether he is or is not armed. He has to make a physically aggressive move towards TM before he can be established as the aggressor. That means, he has to either draw his weapon or take a fighting stance FIRST. If he does neither of those things, then TM is the aggressor and as such, there is NO responsibility to retreat. Now, seeing as how the 911 call shows TM running away, then showing back up later, unless you think he was lying about TM leaving, or that he started following Martin again, Zimmerman is not the aggressor. He was not the one that sought out TM that second time. In short, he's "recovered his innocence." BTW - here's the timing. Remember, the house TM was headed to was only about 20 seconds away when he started running. Now: See the time stamp? When does he hang up the phone? [FONT=Trebuchet MS, trebuchet, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]That's almost two minutes for TM to run 20 seconds away to safety. So, are you saying that Z actually chased him down and held him while he was on the phone with 911? (no sign of heavy breathing or running on the call). Because, unless that's your argument, the whole "he followed TM" line is meaningless once contact is broken, and innocence of both parties reset until one party approaches the other in a threatening manner.[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, trebuchet, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Funny thing, Z doesn't know where TM is according to the 911 call. He's says so to the operator, and thus doesn't want to give out his address for fear of reprisal. The question you now have to ask yourself, is how did TM end up back in physical contact? the immediate past, as well as previous nights has shown that Z dials 911 whenever he sees something happening. That ESTABLISHED pattern alone tells me that he was approached, rather than being approached. [/FONT]At that point, we know nothing else for fact. Everything is up for interpretation, but there is absolutely no established duty to retreat at this time. Now, we get to your line about pulling a gun after being punched. In the main, if he was approached, punched, and sent to the ground with one punch, we are in an entirely new arena where SYG is reestablished and the shooting was not only legal, but justified. THAT, is the point I made from your question above. I was not arguing any other facts of the case. I was not arguing for overall guilt or innocence. So please, stop moving the goalposts. I do find it interesting however, that your mind is already made up on his guilt, long, long before you have heard even one word of the defense.
I already did. In those brief moments, there was a struggle, which included acts that caused injuries and acts that did not. How hard is that to understand? Are there injuries when you arm wrestle? No. There is no evidence that refutes the idea that a struggle ensued and at some point Martin realized Zimmerman had a gun and tried to get it. It's probable that both men were wrestling for position, all the while Zimmerman was screaming for someone to help him. This is perfectly plausible.
You're ignoring Z's story and making up a different one to fit the evidence as if Z's lies aren't significant. If only he could have made up a better story. Z didn't say M sat on him holding him down, struggling or not struggling. Z said he was screaming because his head was being smashed repeatedly into concrete. Why are you discounting that lie? Was Z hallucinating? In hindsight, I bet Z is wishing he had made up a different story.
I'm just going to try to get to the key points here, feel free to tell me if I missed one or more. I didn't shift any goal posts, we are talking past each other in a couple places. I believe Z was the aggressor but that is not what I'm arguing re SYG. I need to see what you are basing the "no duty to retreat on", because SYG is a different standard. I don't see any law that says SYG replaces self defense or applies in any and all circumstances. I read about the aggressor or crime committer needing a different standard to prove self defense. We can dispense with that right away as I'm not disagreeing. Where we disagree is your conflating of SYG with any and every self defense situation, where no crime or aggression was proved. You seem to be claiming "reasonable person" no longer matters and only SYG does. I don't read FL law to say that. I read it to say self defense doesn't apply if a reasonable person would have fled or would have avoided the situation in the first place. Under that standard, Z put himself in the situation regardless of being the aggressor or not. It may have been legal for Z to follow M. Just as it was legal for M to turn at the 'T' toward his condo and wait to see if Z really was following him. Neither man is doing anything illegal at that point. However, a reasonable person would not have followed M. A reasonable person would have waited in his vehicle for the police. A reasonable person would have retreated after being punched, given the circumstances. You believe my mind was made up from the start. You're wrong. I looked at the evidence that shows Z is lying about what happened. I think you believe (sorry) in a bigoted way, TM must have been a black and/or teen punk, ready for a fight. Aggressive, all those stereotypes about young black males. If a person starts with a neutral point of view, we know Z was angry, he said so to the dispatcher. We know Z lied, the physical evidence supports that conclusion. Those are not stereotypes about a cop wannabe, those are facts the evidence supports. We know M punched Z at least once, and hard. But we also know Z brought a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber on a pursuit when the police were on their way and "didn't need him to do that". We know Z's story that M came after him as he merely looked for an address doesn't fit the evidence. It was a lie. So you can use stereotypes, TM was a violent black kid with an attitude. There's no evidence that's true. It even turns out Mark O'Mara released false information about TM being involved in an assault when in reality TM wasn't. O'mara apologized all the while the false facts were left in people's minds. We know TM smoked pot and ditched school. None of that makes him the stereotypical gang banger or violent teen. And you can apply a stereotype to GZ. He falsely judged and chased an innocent kid, he had a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber, he used cop language like "suspect" and "holstered his firearm". Which of those stereotypes has evidence to support it?
Then you completely misunderstand the entire SYG law. The issue of a "reasonable person" has nothing to do with retreating. It has to do with assuming whether the person did, or did not present a life threatening or severely bodily harm threatening situation. In practice, what sometimes may come up is that if a person had a possibility to retreat, that they weren't really in serious bodily harm. That is not the law, but it is how juries sometimes deal with it... And I completely agree at this point. And here is where you begin to assume "reasonable" when your "reasonable" doesn't necessarily equate to anyone elses. But before we even get to that . . . 1. "Reasonable person" in the law refers specifically to the situation itself, not to the attendant circumstances that led up to the situation. Does a reasonable person believe that his or her life is in danger, or that they are in fear of severe bodily harm. So whether you would have followed, or stayed in the car, or even tried to retreat, has nothing to do with this situation. It is PURELY, would a reasonable person believe that they are in danger of severe bodily harm or losing their life. If yes, then there is justification in taking the life of the attacker. The only caveat, as I noted above, is if the attacker has stopped the attack. And, by the way, "duty to retreat" in law is the doctrine that is in opposition of "stand your ground." You cannot have the two doctrines of law applied simultaneously, as one cancels the other out. Here is an assistant professor of Law's discussion on it (former federal prosecutor) 2. You assume retreat was a possibility. You do not know if that was or was not true. 3. You have conflated the timeline here. Z had stopped following M. That much is on the tape. Period. There is no disputing that, unless you believe Z was lying to the 911 operator and chasing M to his house. Because of that break, all the above about following and getting out of the car, etc. etc. is moot at this point. The next time the two come into contact is a completely new and different confrontation. I see, the "you disagree with me so you must be a bigot" argument. For someone that so enjoys posting links to logical fallacies, you sure missed that one. However, in response, all I can do is laugh. I don't need to say anything else, but your ignorance of me is blinding at this point. No, the physical evidence can't support any conclusion. The physical evidence are not facts. It is simply pieces of information. The question is whether the narrative that is told around the physical evidence is believable or not. Just remember this phrase, there is no observation without interpretation. NOTHING, is purely observed, it is all interpreted. Now, from that point, I submit that you have made a mountain out of molehill. Yep, and that is germane to the situation. That has nothing to do with anything. Sorry, I ONLY carry with a round in the chamber. Ninety percent of people who carry only carry with a round in the chamber. If you do not have a round chambered, you're better off leaving the gun at home. BTW, a guy got pulled over in my city. Cop took his gun while he was running the plates. When the cop came back, he gave the gun back and berated him for twenty minutes . . . because HE DIDNT HAVE A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER. If you have a concealed carry license, you are licensed to carry a gun, with a chambered round. IMO, one of the few things he did RIGHT that night, was have a round chambered. Nope, that again is where your facts are wrong. Go back to the tape. Z has STOPPED FOLLOWING. There is no more pursuit. I really don't know why you fail to recognize that point. Contact had been broken off. The question that now comes up is why, after contact was lost, the two of them met up AGAIN. Nope. It doesn't fit the evidence for the FIRST contact, but the FIRST contact is not the problem. The problem, and where the shooting happened, was the SECOND contact. Don't know, since I don't use stereotypes. Frankly, I find them disgusting. What I do know however, is that you've assumed that I've taken a position out of racism/bigotry, purely because I am not in agreement with you. That says a lot about the way you think about people who disagree with you, and frankly, it really is sad. What's worse, is that it speaks to your proclivity to assume things, such as "what is reasonable" and hold yourself as the example, while not admitting that you might be wrong on anything, not admitting that you have any kind of bias, and not admitting that your culture/background (I'm assuming Chicago/Illinois for some reasons, but I admit I might be wrong on that, can't remember the conversation) has ANYTHING to do with that fact and then reassessing bias based on that viewpoint. And yes, there's evidence all over this thread, and this website for that last paragraph. Oh, and for your information, I've yet to even make a determination whether I think Z is or is not guilty. Imagine that. One last thing . . . make sure that before you make a comment as you did, the person you're talking to isn't part of an interracial marriage, his best friend part of another interracial marriage, he chooses to attend churches that are multiethnic, and has spent too, too many hours in inner cities mourning with families over death of loved ones and the like.
I'm looking for a legal citation in all that, EC, that supports your interpretation of SYG, and I'm not seeing it. What I find with my own search of the legal case you assume but haven't supported, is a mix of legal outcomes. So it would appear that your belief that you personally know with certainty how to interpret the SYG law has issues. I strongly urge you to read the examples that are all over the map as far as what is self defense under SYG and what isn't. Needless to say, it's telling that Z's defense team opted not to invoke SYG in a hearing with the judge deciding. If you apply preponderance of the evidence in this case, you don't get reasonable doubt, you get evidence that demonstrates Z lying about what happened.
Do you even read the sources you provide all the way through? I quote from YOUR source So, thanks for providing more proof that SYG laws and "duty to retreat" laws are not mutually applicable. I'm not arguing merits of a case. I'm arguing what the law ITSELF says. You, however, are trying to argue that evidence that amounts to a SYG case equals what SYG means. It's a faulty logic. Hmm, I also notice no comment about your assumptions concerning my "bigotry." Must be nice to make horrendous assumptions and then ignore it when you find out you're wrong.
Yes I read the sources I cite. But I don't cherry pick from them. The citation said interpretation of the law was inconsistent. You cherry picked a paragraph that supported your belief and ignored the fact the article cited case after case with inconsistent outcomes in courts. Maybe it's you that should have read the whole citation.
Don't bother, EC. Ginger thinks that there are two sides to this case, the right side (hers) and the racist/bigot side. Typical. Nothing more to see here.
Sigh... you can lead a horse to water . . . I'm getting tired of playing "move the goalposts." Look, we were arguing legal definitions, not amount of evidence necessary and how evenly the cases are handled. Guess you kind of ignored that. Just like you ignored those two minutes that Z was on the phone with the police when TM was GONE before he hung up. Just like you ignored the fact that you made some horrid assumptions about me as a person, and then moved on when you found out it wasn't true. Just like you moved on when you couldn't admit bias. And yet, with all that said, you expect someone else to actually accede to your logic? Sigh, I should've known from all the other threads. JJ. Yeah, thus, this'll be my last post in this thread. It really does get tiring, doesn't it? Guess this'll be my last visit to the "lounge."
Really? Wow. No bias here whatsoever! It's funny that you find every minute detail about this case and ignore pictures, school records, twitter and text messages. Drugs, guns, fighting, stealing... it's all there. Make whatever conclusions you want, but don't hide the facts because you're too afraid someone will call you a racist. I just hope justice truly is blind so that people like you don't convict innocent people because of your own bigotry.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to trying out the new and improved Short Story Writing Contest tomorrow or Monday. I'll spend the next week and a half working on writing a new story. I think I like that better.
Drugs: marijuana. Big deal, half the country smokes pot. Fighting: O'Mara lied about the video on M's phone then admitted it after the damage he wanted to do was done. Stealing: He got caught writing graffiti on a school door. The "obscene" language? He wrote "WTF". In his backpack was some costume jewelry that was never found to be reported stolen, no one knows whose it was. It wasn't gold and silver rings with diamonds as the FreeRepublic blog would have people believe, it was junk jewelry. And they found a screwdriver. I have a tool in my purse with a screwdriver on it. My son carries a tool that has a screwdriver on it. Just saying a screwdriver is a burglary tool doesn't make it one. Gun and texts about gangstas: That's the only thing that's actually incriminating and it hardly makes every kid who talks that way or knows someone with a gun a person who would attack someone for following them if the person didn't grab Martin in some way. Z, OTOH, has an actual arrest record for battery on a police officer, and a domestic violence injunction. It still comes back to the physical evidence, Z was punched once, maybe twice. The physical evidence refutes his story, in a big way. There's no bias in that, just his statements vs the physical evidence.
Zimmerman has been arrested one time, when he was 20 and a bunch of friends were out drinking. An undercover cop started hard-balling his friend and Zimmerman shoved him. It was later dropped. The alleged 'domestic violence' was also proved to be just a means for both Z and an ex to get restraining orders on each other. It was dropped and both parties got restraining orders. And that was a decade ago. Nice try though. What about the truth vs. the physical evidence? You love to ignore that. The ONLY thing you focus on are discrepancies in Zinmermans statements, and you claim that makes him a murderer. His 'story', whether it jives with the evidence or not, isn't enough by itself to convict him. I have read dozens if articles all over the Internet and they all say the same thing: There's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. The state falls short. There's just no way around it.
Unless the jury had already made up its mind (and you can never be 100% certain with juries), he'll be acquitted of second degree murder. There's just no way a reasonable juror could get there based on the evidence presented. If any of them do, that should be a cause for concern for everyone in the country. The State hasn't even come close to what should be necessary to imprison someone for murder.
The point being an image of a person concluded from a bit of information released in news reports isn't likely to be a valid conclusion. How do you get from whatever you know about TM to "obviously he initiated the assault on GZ"? Zimmerman may very well have grabbed M, so he wouldn't get away. And what you call "discrepancies" are huge. Z was not pummeled. Period, that much we know. There's no reason to scream for help for 40 seconds without the pummeling. That impasse is not going to change between us. I await the defense's case.
I have a new question, it came up in one of those news pundit discussions: GZ demonstrated where his gun was on one of the videos that was introduced (the walk through I think) showing the holster was in the back, while Mark O'Mara demonstrated where the gun was, reaching in the front of his pants. The news program showed both men giving their version. Looks like O'Mara was trying to mislead the jury, but I digress. My question, if a person is straddling another, how was the holster position as described by GZ visible? You'd have to be straddling a person's thighs for the waist to be visible. If TM was straddling GZ in the usual position, the gun would be under GZ and behind TM's bent legs. Also, pretty hard for GZ to get to his gun with TM on top of him with the holster in the position GZ describes.
Looks like the judge has decided to allow the fact that Martin had drugs in his system that night: In Reversal, Florida Judge Okays Testimony About Trayvon Martin’s Marijuana Usage Not that it matters, it's just icing on the cake at this point. Dan Abrams has stated that there's no 'there there' to borrow a democrat catchphrase: I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The defense should be able to wrap it up this week with the acquittal coming probably early next week.
How come you didn't answer my question about the holster? Pot makes you mellow, most people know that. BTW, I just noticed your sig. Cool. I'll have to read them.
Because it's irrelevant. Did you read the article by Dan Abrams? It also causes anxiety and paranoia. Thanks! I'm always happy when I actually finish a short story.
No one has posed a pertinent fact. At times, 911 instructions are no different than speaking to a law enforcement officer. George Zimmerman was instructed to keep his distance from the young man and he didn't. He took matters into his own hands, created the situation and that was criminal. My guess he scared the living shit out of a good kid and the fight or flight reflex kicked in. George Zimmerman killed a young man who probably was in fear for his life yet only the man who was armed, who disregarded 911 instructions is alive to make the claim he fought for his. I'm big on gun rights but this man screwed the pooch with his wana-be-cop behavior and is no doubt guilty. But jurors for Casey Anthony saw the toddler's grandfather as somehow being involved. Wonder how many of those shit-for-brains jurors know beyond a reasonable doubt, professional wrestling is real. Odds are...shit! It's a sure thing! They'll reload the jury box with idiots who couldn't find their ass holes with their hands tied behind their backs.
[Pot] "also causes anxiety and paranoia". Sorry JJ, that's absolute crap. As for Z's story not matching the evidence, I'm not going the belabor the point it matters. Your short stories are still good.
I've seen research that suggests that marijuana does cause people to experience anxiety attacks. But it's still up for debate. The fact that THC was found in Martin's system is good news for the defense.
Sorry Michael, but you're a little late to the party and most of your imaginary scenario has been disproved by the evidence, or shown to be inconsequential to the verdict. Also, your knowledge of the law seems to be a little...lacking.
