Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

[El Guapo]

3.) Zimmerman "did not know if he was armed or not." That's a damaging admission for Zimmerman to make unprompted. Zimmerman didn't say, "I thought he was armed." He said he didn't know. (Or rather: "did not" know. The absence of contractions throughout is, I guess, meant to convey the gravity of the situation.) Yet not knowing, Zimmerman fired the gun anyway. Even under Florida's stupid "stand your ground" law, I can't imagine citizens have license to shoot people merely on the off chance that they might possibly have guns.

I'm not certain why this matters. Armed or not, if Martin attacked him, and was on top of Zimmerman beating him, then Zimmerman had a right of self defense.

That said, it wasn't all roses for the prosecution either:

In Friday's hearing, an investigator for special prosecutor Angela Corey's office said authorities have no evidence showing who started the altercation that led to Martin's death.

"Do I know? No," investigator Dale Gilbreath said when asked if he knew who started the fight.

It's a fair point - Florida's SYG law just says that if you're attacked in a place where you have a lawful place to be, you have the right to use lethal force. So it's not clear that his does matter.

That said, I'd think judges are likely to read in some limitations to the word "attacked". If someone slaps me in a bar (say), do I then have the the right to shoot them in the head? What about shoving? Tackling?

I do wonder whether the SYG defines "attacked" in a more precise way. Logically there must be some scale to "attacked" - there must be SOME amount of perceived threat involved to justify what would otherwise be a murder, right?

[Grifman]

That said, I'd think judges are likely to read in some limitations to the word "attacked". If someone slaps me in a bar (say), do I then have the the right to shoot them in the head? What about shoving? Tackling?

I do wonder whether the SYG defines "attacked" in a more precise way. Logically there must be some scale to "attacked" - there must be SOME amount of perceived threat involved to justify what would otherwise be a murder, right?

No, that's the problem with the SYG law, it's all based upon the shooter's perception, accurate or not. If yo think you are threatened you can fire. That's why it's been characterized as a "shot first, ask questions later" law.

[El Guapo]

That said, I'd think judges are likely to read in some limitations to the word "attacked". If someone slaps me in a bar (say), do I then have the the right to shoot them in the head? What about shoving? Tackling?

I do wonder whether the SYG defines "attacked" in a more precise way. Logically there must be some scale to "attacked" - there must be SOME amount of perceived threat involved to justify what would otherwise be a murder, right?

No, that's the problem with the SYG law, it's all based upon the shooter's perception, accurate or not. If yo think you are threatened you can fire. That's why it's been characterized as a "shot first, ask questions later" law.

But it's not all based on perception - the "attacked" part isn't:

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.

So there are several parts:

(1) Not engaged in an unlawful activity;
(2) Attacked;
(3) Where you have a right to be; AND
(4) Reasonably believe it necessary to prevent death / great bodily harm / forcible felony (for deadly force).

If you are not "attacked" you have no right to use fore at all, regardless of your perception. So...if someone is shoved, are they "attacked"?

Also, to the issue of perception, if Zimmerman did not know or have reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was armed, then it is less reasonable for him to believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Note that when they say "reasonably believe", there is likely an objective element to that - what a reasonable person in that situation would believe, not just what the person actually perceived. Otherwise there are potential issues - what if the person only believes that they are threatened with death because they are drunk, on drugs, etc.?

[Grifman]

The Martin family really needs to stop talking to the press and let the system work. I understand their loss and if Zimmerman is guilty, then throw the book at him. But their public statements don't do them much good. First they trumpet the low res police video as evidence that Zimmerman wasn't injured. Then when a high res version indicated injuries, it doesn't matter. They want an apology from Zimmerman, he apologizes publicly (and has made attempts privately to do so) and they reject the apology as self serving. They're upset that Zimmerman get bail as if they don't understand that bail is about making sure that the defendant appears for his trial, not additional punishment before convictions (surely their attorney explained this to them).

[Captain Caveman]

That said, I'd think judges are likely to read in some limitations to the word "attacked". If someone slaps me in a bar (say), do I then have the the right to shoot them in the head? What about shoving? Tackling?

I do wonder whether the SYG defines "attacked" in a more precise way. Logically there must be some scale to "attacked" - there must be SOME amount of perceived threat involved to justify what would otherwise be a murder, right?

No, that's the problem with the SYG law, it's all based upon the shooter's perception, accurate or not. If yo think you are threatened you can fire. That's why it's been characterized as a "shot first, ask questions later" law.

But it's not all based on perception - the "attacked" part isn't:

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.

So there are several parts:

(1) Not engaged in an unlawful activity;
(2) Attacked;
(3) Where you have a right to be; AND
(4) Reasonably believe it necessary to prevent death / great bodily harm / forcible felony (for deadly force).

If you are not "attacked" you have no right to use fore at all, regardless of your perception. So...if someone is shoved, are they "attacked"?

Also, to the issue of perception, if Zimmerman did not know or have reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was armed, then it is less reasonable for him to believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Note that when they say "reasonably believe", there is likely an objective element to that - what a reasonable person in that situation would believe, not just what the person actually perceived. Otherwise there are potential issues - what if the person only believes that they are threatened with death because they are drunk, on drugs, etc.?

This is why I hate having the last post on a previous page. These are the exact questions I was asking.

[Grifman]

But it's not all based on perception - the "attacked" part isn't:

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.

So there are several parts:

(1) Not engaged in an unlawful activity;
(2) Attacked;
(3) Where you have a right to be; AND
(4) Reasonably believe it necessary to prevent death / great bodily harm / forcible felony (for deadly force).

If you are not "attacked" you have no right to use fore at all, regardless of your perception. So...if someone is shoved, are they "attacked"?

Also, to the issue of perception, if Zimmerman did not know or have reason to believe that Trayvon Martin was armed, then it is less reasonable for him to believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Note that when they say "reasonably believe", there is likely an objective element to that - what a reasonable person in that situation would believe, not just what the person actually perceived. Otherwise there are potential issues - what if the person only believes that they are threatened with death because they are drunk, on drugs, etc.?

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/main" target="_blank

I'll quote from some of the examples of dismissed cases:

Location: At the front gate of the defendant's yard in Homosassa, Citrus County

What happened: Oscar Delbono, 53, shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pit bull terriers. Huse's two small children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard after midnight. A witness said the two were arguing and Huse, who had previously threatened Delbono, was "flailing his arms." A witness who saw the fatal shooting said Huse was turning to leave when Delbono shot him and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."

The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino.

No attack took place.

Location: In the shooter's yard at 3239 Golden Eagle Drive in Land O'Lakes in Wesley Chapel, Pasco County

What happened: William Kuch was unarmed and drunk when he wandered up to Gregory Stewart's door about 5 a.m. in August 2009. When he tried to open the door, Stewart warned him off. When he came back and tried again, Stewart pointed a gun at him. Kuch allegedly said he needed a light and that he wasn't afraid. Stewart said Kuch then moved toward him, so he fired. Kuch recovered and Stewart faced no criminal action.

The outcome: The Pasco County Sheriff's Office originally arrested Stewart on aggravated battery charges, but the prosecutors declined to prosecute.

No attack took place.

Location: his mother's house backyard in North Fort Myers, Lee County

What happened: Michael D. Frazzini, 35, went to his mother's house to investigate claims that neighbors were harassing her, specifically 22-year-old Corey Rasmussen, who, she said, had taken her car keys. Frazzini, dressed in sweat clothes and a camouflage mask, hid in the back yard. When the Rasmussens spotted someone behind the house, Corey Rasmussen jumped the fence into a utility easement where they encountered Frazzini carrying something in his hand. It was a souvenir baseball bat. Corey's father, Todd, instructed his daughter to retrieve his .357 revolver. He saw his son and the masked man facing off, he told police, yelled a warning and then fired one shot into Frazzini's chest. Frazzini fell face down onto a manhole cover. It is still in dispute whether Frazzini was in his mother's yard when he was shot though the police report lists the Rasmussen property as the scene of the incident.

The outcome: Not charged.

No attack.

In these cases, these people claimed they feared for their lives but were not actually attacked.

[Captain Caveman]

Man, that's one seriously fucked up law.

[El Guapo]

It's from Jag's citation on p1 of the thread: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 6.013.html" target="_blank

The thing that ties your cases together is that those are all calls by the prosecutors not to charge under their interpretation of the law as applied to their cases. The judge owes no deference to any of those decisions. "Attacked" is IN THE STATUTE, which by contrast is binding on the judge.

[Grifman]

It's from Jag's citation on p1 of the thread: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 6.013.html" target="_blank

The thing that ties your cases together is that those are all calls by the prosecutors not to charge under their interpretation of the law as applied to their cases. The judge owes no deference to any of those decisions.

Agreed, but I'm just saying that your presumption of a required "attack" isn't apparently a requirement to invoke the law as it is actually applied in Florida.

[El Guapo]

But it is a requirement; it's written into the statute. That some Florida state prosecutors are apparently bad at their jobs has no impact on this. More importantly, it has no impact on how the judge will apply the law.

[Captain Caveman]

But it is a requirement; it's written into the statute. That some Florida state prosecutors are apparently bad at their jobs has no impact on this. More importantly, it has no impact on how the judge will apply the law.

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack. I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

[Daehawk]

Tool weapon (guns knives etc) or unarmed weapon (fists hands etc)..or not..if you think your life or the life of a loved one is in danger to bodily harm you should have to right to defend yourself and other with lethal force.

[Zurai]

It's a fair point - Florida's SYG law just says that if you're attacked in a place where you have a lawful place to be, you have the right to use lethal force.

False. Florida's SYG law still requires nonlethal force unless you are reasonably fearful of loss of life or of great bodily harm.

[Zurai]

Man, that's one seriously fucked up law.

Those have nothing whatsoever to do with Stand Your Ground. They are all Castle cases -- they take place in or near the shooter's property (or their family's property).

[mike]

It's crazy to me that, even if attacked first, any physical altercation can be legal justification for using lethal force.

Amazing ain't it? Even in the old west it didn't work that way. Devolution, it's happening all around us.

[Grifman]

Man, that's one seriously fucked up law.

Those have nothing whatsoever to do with Stand Your Ground. They are all Castle cases -- they take place in or near the shooter's property (or their family's property).

From what I've read, the Castle doctrine has to do with your house/abode, not your yard. One of the above does appear to really be a castle doctrine (guy was apparently trying to enter the house) but the others are outside. I'm not sure the castle doctrine applies in those cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine" target="_blank

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities

Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law or aiding or abetting another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal dut

It would seem that whether the yard is covered would be up to individual state law. Florida castle doctrine only covers the home or vehicle:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

Therefore it appears two of the examples above cited by the newspaper are not castle doctrine.

[dbt1949]

Around here we don't have the stand your ground law. Just the simple shoot them and drag them in your house and put a knife in their hands law.

[Grifman]

It's crazy to me that, even if attacked first, any physical altercation can be legal justification for using lethal force.

Amazing ain't it? Even in the old west it didn't work that way. Devolution, it's happening all around us.

But according to El Guapo, we're more enlightened now!

[Chrisoc13]

But it is a requirement; it's written into the statute. That some Florida state prosecutors are apparently bad at their jobs has no impact on this. More importantly, it has no impact on how the judge will apply the law.

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack. I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But if he was indeed getting his head bashed into the ground he should have the right to defend himself.

Look despite what all the movies and TV show getting your head bashed into the ground can have very extreme consequences. Sure movies may show fights where people get hit over the head with a bat and nothing happens but the reality of the situation is head injuries can really mess you up quickly. If indeed it was a situation where Zimmerman was getting his head bashed into the ground (I was not there, so I do not know) then that is certainly a situation where his life was in danger, whether Martin had a weapon or not.

[Grifman]

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack.

Sure.

I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But you don't know that's what happened. You're positing a relatively benign push. But that's not what Zimmerman says what happened. None of us really know, we weren't there, and I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

[GreenGoo]

But it is a requirement; it's written into the statute. That some Florida state prosecutors are apparently bad at their jobs has no impact on this. More importantly, it has no impact on how the judge will apply the law.

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack. I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But if he was indeed getting his head bashed into the ground he should have the right to defend himself.

Look despite what all the movies and TV show getting your head bashed into the ground can have very extreme consequences.

I've already said that if I were in that situation, pinned to the ground and having my head bashed against the ground by a total stranger and no one around to help, I'm pulling the trigger. It's not even a question.

[Captain Caveman]

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack.

Sure.

I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But you don't know that's what happened. You're positing a relatively benign push. But that's not what Zimmerman says what happened. None of us really know, we weren't there, and I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

That's why I said "if", and why I said the severity of the attack, if Martin did indeed initiate it, is still an open question, and one that is central to rendering a judgement. But its hard to put the pieces together to determine what happened when 1) the police so bungled any investigation and 2) one of the parties involved is dead and can't speak to his side of the story. Under stand your ground, when somebody is killed, how much is one required to believe the killer's account of events, especially considering he would have every incentive to paint a picture of just cause whether accurate or not, or is there some requirement that aspects of his story needs external corroboration?

[msduncan]

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack.

Sure.

I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But you don't know that's what happened. You're positing a relatively benign push. But that's not what Zimmerman says what happened. None of us really know, we weren't there, and I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

The rule of thumb for self-defense is that the person feels their life is in danger. Grif is correct in saying that we will never know for sure if Zimmerman felt that way. The only thing we can go on is his account of the story, the eyewitness accounts, and the supporting evidence.

So far, I've seen:

1. His story that he was jumped when trying to locate Martin, then knocked to the ground and his head repeated pounded into the ground thus invoking his fear for his life. He says he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed, and thus defended himself.

2. Eyewitness accounts. Some of the witnesses say that they noticed the situation when they saw Zimmerman standing over Martin after he had been shot. There have been at least two witnesses that saw a longer sequence of events where Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Martin over him. After they went to call police and returned the tables were turned (presumable when the other witnesses noticed only AFTER the gunshot).

3. We now have supporting evidence of injuries to Zimmerman. He didn't just walk up and shoot Martin in the back. He sustained injuries to the back of his head. This tends to support both Zimmerman's account and the eye witnesses that saw a longer version of the events.


People need to think long and hard before they send Zimmerman to prison for a long time (2nd degree murder) just because the person he shot happened to be black or happened to be 17. People need to be careful joining the mob-rule mentality that has been promoted by the media and special interest groups.

Even if NO stand-your-ground law was on the books, if the events as I just described happened in a place where conceal carry was legal this would still be considered self-defense. If a person uses lethal force to defend themselves because they think their life is in danger as a result of an assault/battery action, the circumstances do NOT magically change just because the attacker proved not to be armed after the fact.

[RunningMn9]

This tends to support both Zimmerman's account and the eye witnesses that saw a longer version of the events.

Unless you are the homicide investigator that night, or the lead investigator for the prosecution, both of which concluded that the evidence at the scene (including injuries) was inconsistent with the story that Zimmerman gave.

But hey, we read about it on the Internet and saw a still frame and a fuzzy video, so we're experts now I guess.

[Combustible Lemur]

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack.

Sure.

I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But you don't know that's what happened. You're positing a relatively benign push. But that's not what Zimmerman says what happened. None of us really know, we weren't there, and I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

The rule of thumb for self-defense is that the person feels their life is in danger. Grif is correct in saying that we will never know for sure if Zimmerman felt that way. The only thing we can go on is his account of the story, the eyewitness accounts, and the supporting evidence.

So far, I've seen:

1. His story that he was jumped when trying to locate Martin, then knocked to the ground and his head repeated pounded into the ground thus invoking his fear for his life. He says he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed, and thus defended himself.

2. Eyewitness accounts. Some of the witnesses say that they noticed the situation when they saw Zimmerman standing over Martin after he had been shot. There have been at least two witnesses that saw a longer sequence of events where Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Martin over him. After they went to call police and returned the tables were turned (presumable when the other witnesses noticed only AFTER the gunshot).

3. We now have supporting evidence of injuries to Zimmerman. He didn't just walk up and shoot Martin in the back. He sustained injuries to the back of his head. This tends to support both Zimmerman's account and the eye witnesses that saw a longer version of the events.


People need to think long and hard before they send Zimmerman to prison for a long time (2nd degree murder) just because the person he shot happened to be black or happened to be 17. People need to be careful joining the mob-rule mentality that has been promoted by the media and special interest groups.

Even if NO stand-your-ground law was on the books, if the events as I just described happened in a place where conceal carry was legal this would still be considered self-defense. If a person uses lethal force to defend themselves because they think their life is in danger as a result of an assault/battery action, the circumstances do NOT magically change just because the attacker proved not to be armed after the fact.

People Also need to be careful of making a system that allows stalkers to create situations where their victim ends up dead and they claim self defense. Obviously, neither of us know if either situation is totally true. Or entirely false. But the one fact that remains, media is puppies.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Crux]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

[Pyperkub]

The Martin family really needs to stop talking to the press and let the system work. I understand their loss and if Zimmerman is guilty, then throw the book at him. But their public statements don't do them much good. First they trumpet the low res police video as evidence that Zimmerman wasn't injured. Then when a high res version indicated injuries, it doesn't matter. They want an apology from Zimmerman, he apologizes publicly (and has made attempts privately to do so) and they reject the apology as self serving. They're upset that Zimmerman get bail as if they don't understand that bail is about making sure that the defendant appears for his trial, not additional punishment before convictions (surely their attorney explained this to them).

That's not how it works in America now, you have to make as big of a stir as you can so you can sell the rights, especially since it is unlikely Zimmerman will be convicted.

[RunningMn9]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

[Rip]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

You would think if they doubted his version they would at least provide a more likely explanation for Zimmerman's injuries. Do they think he gave himself the injuries? I find it hard to imagine how the guy could injure the back of his head by anything other than being attacked. Unless he is some evil mastermind and beat his own head against something which seems farfetched.

[Reemul]

It still seems so pointless, if he hadn't followed him none of this would have happened. It almost seems like he was trying to get a rise out of the person so he had an excuse to kill him. Then he could go round be the big I am having shot someone.

The whole thing is just so wrong on so many levels, guilty, not guilty etc 1 person is dead, 1 family have lost a son and nothing good can come of the whole thing yet it seems we never learn anything from it.

[Victoria Raverna]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

You would think if they doubted his version they would at least provide a more likely explanation for Zimmerman's injuries. Do they think he gave himself the injuries? I find it hard to imagine how the guy could injure the back of his head by anything other than being attacked. Unless he is some evil mastermind and beat his own head against something which seems farfetched.

It was raining and wet. Slippery floor. Got it?

[Crux]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

Understand I'm not commenting on whether or not Zimmerman is telling the truth. I'm responding to those people who act as though shooting someone who is slamming your head into the ground is a completely inappropriate response. It really isn't, as there is a very reasonable fear for your life if a physical altercation ever reaches that point.

Nobody really dies from getting punched in the face a couple of times (absent a pre-existing medical condition). Nobody dies from getting kicked in the ribs once. People die from having their head kicked or smashed against things. That's how you get killed in a fight/brawl. If that's ever happening to you, you have to change the dynamic, and fast or there's a good chance you won't walk away.

[RunningMn9]

You would think if they doubted his version they would at least provide a more likely explanation for Zimmerman's injuries. Do they think he gave himself the injuries? I find it hard to imagine how the guy could injure the back of his head by anything other than being attacked. Unless he is some evil mastermind and beat his own head against something which seems farfetched.

I would think that. At trial.

[msduncan]

This tends to support both Zimmerman's account and the eye witnesses that saw a longer version of the events.

Unless you are the homicide investigator that night, or the lead investigator for the prosecution, both of which concluded that the evidence at the scene (including injuries) was inconsistent with the story that Zimmerman gave.

But hey, we read about it on the Internet and saw a still frame and a fuzzy video, so we're experts now I guess.

Multiple legal experts have panned the documents coming from the Special Prosecutor saying their filing should never have been accepted by the court. Public pressure is driving this case -- something I detest.

And I didn't realize the homicide investigator on the scene felt the evidence was inconsistent. Can you point me to a link where it talks about this?

[msduncan]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

Again, the new prosecutor has been railed against by legal experts and the filing by the special prosecutor has been panned as amateur.

Among the legal experts saying this 4 page affidavit is beyond weak are:

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
Jeralyn Merritt (runs a well known legal blog)
Andrew McCarthy (former prosecutor)

[Little Raven]

You would think if they doubted his version they would at least provide a more likely explanation for Zimmerman's injuries.

As RunningMan said, the appropriate time for that is at the trial.

But remember: all the investigators are saying is that things probably didn't go down the way Zimmerman is claiming that they did. That doesn't mean Zimmerman wasn't attacked in some way, and it doesn't mean Zimmerman is deliberately lying. People are notoriously unreliable witnesses once the adrenaline starts flowing. It's quite possible that Zimmerman truly believes something happened that isn't at all supported by the physical evidence.

This is why there needs to be a trial.

[Pyperkub]

That still leaves open the question of the severity of the attack.

Sure.

I'm not a Floridian, so maybe I'm just a pussy, but even if Martin attacked first, say by pushing Zimmerman hard to the ground, it's a pretty fucked up law that allows Zimmerman to legally shoot him dead. IMHO, of course.

But you don't know that's what happened. You're positing a relatively benign push. But that's not what Zimmerman says what happened. None of us really know, we weren't there, and I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

The rule of thumb for self-defense is that the person feels their life is in danger. Grif is correct in saying that we will never know for sure if Zimmerman felt that way. The only thing we can go on is his account of the story, the eyewitness accounts, and the supporting evidence.

So far, I've seen:

1. His story that he was jumped when trying to locate Martin, then knocked to the ground and his head repeated pounded into the ground thus invoking his fear for his life. He says he had no way of knowing if Martin was armed, and thus defended himself.

2. Eyewitness accounts. Some of the witnesses say that they noticed the situation when they saw Zimmerman standing over Martin after he had been shot. There have been at least two witnesses that saw a longer sequence of events where Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Martin over him. After they went to call police and returned the tables were turned (presumable when the other witnesses noticed only AFTER the gunshot).

3. We now have supporting evidence of injuries to Zimmerman. He didn't just walk up and shoot Martin in the back. He sustained injuries to the back of his head. This tends to support both Zimmerman's account and the eye witnesses that saw a longer version of the events.


People need to think long and hard before they send Zimmerman to prison for a long time (2nd degree murder) just because the person he shot happened to be black or happened to be 17. People need to be careful joining the mob-rule mentality that has been promoted by the media and special interest groups.

Even if NO stand-your-ground law was on the books, if the events as I just described happened in a place where conceal carry was legal this would still be considered self-defense. If a person uses lethal force to defend themselves because they think their life is in danger as a result of an assault/battery action, the circumstances do NOT magically change just because the attacker proved not to be armed after the fact.

And I have no problem with that. However, I think that SYG in this case contributes greatly to Zimmerman being out there with a gun. I think the chances that he follows Martin and gets out of his car to confront him while ignoring dispatcher requests to not do so are almost nil... or that he would have been taken into custody (and probably charged) immediately afterwards.

Frankly, I'm not interested in the trial/circus crap, but I think this is an extraordinarily bad law that encourages vigilantism by untrained, irresponsible idiots and that this case is one example of the tragic proof of that. So I guess I do welcome some of the circus, but only for shining a bright light on this POS law that needs to be rethought in every single state that has implemented it at the bidding of the NRA and ALEC.

[Rip]

It still seems so pointless, if he hadn't followed him none of this would have happened. It almost seems like he was trying to get a rise out of the person so he had an excuse to kill him. Then he could go round be the big I am having shot someone.

The whole thing is just so wrong on so many levels, guilty, not guilty etc 1 person is dead, 1 family have lost a son and nothing good can come of the whole thing yet it seems we never learn anything from it.

Talk about a stretch.

So I guess you are upset they didn't charge him with Murder I seeing how you apparently think it was premeditated?

[Rip]

I've had two different players end up with lasting concussions from being hit in the head by a tennis ball this season. Granted this is rare, but you don't want to know what having your head slammed into a concrete sidewalk a couple of times can do to you. If I'm on the ground and someone slams my head into concrete, you better believe I'm not waiting for him to do it again before I take action. By the time you can be sure he means to kill you you're far past the point of being able to do anything about it.

People keep repeating this, so I will keep repeating this: the homicide investigator and the lead investigator for the new prosecutor found that his injuries are inconsistent with his story. After examining the evidence (and interviewing Zimmerman), they concluded that Martin was not slamming his head into concrete. So while I agree that I wouldn't want my head slammed into concrete, we have no idea whether that even happened.

I don't know whether the investigators are right. But I know that media reports, a still photo and a fuzzy video aren't enough for me to form an educated opinion. They are only enough for me to form the opinion that the people who released these things want me to form.

You would think if they doubted his version they would at least provide a more likely explanation for Zimmerman's injuries. Do they think he gave himself the injuries? I find it hard to imagine how the guy could injure the back of his head by anything other than being attacked. Unless he is some evil mastermind and beat his own head against something which seems farfetched.

It was raining and wet. Slippery floor. Got it?

Gotcha, then poor Trayvon rushes over to help him up and while bent over trying to grasp him to lift him up that jackass shot him.

[Reemul]

It still seems so pointless, if he hadn't followed him none of this would have happened. It almost seems like he was trying to get a rise out of the person so he had an excuse to kill him. Then he could go round be the big I am having shot someone.

The whole thing is just so wrong on so many levels, guilty, not guilty etc 1 person is dead, 1 family have lost a son and nothing good can come of the whole thing yet it seems we never learn anything from it.

Talk about a stretch.

So I guess you are upset they didn't charge him with Murder I seeing how you apparently think it was premeditated?

Following him was premeditated seeing as he was told to stop or did he follow him accidentally!!

As to a stretch, thats the whole problem with your society and violence, everything is an accident, a stretch, won't happen can't happen, we need to be safe blah blah. You go round killing each other like it's an ok thing to do, heck he looked at me funny in my house, he seemed dangerous, i need 15 guns in case we get invaded and so on yet all you conitue to do is kill each other.

For a civilized society you sure kill a lot of each other that maybe that's why the rest of the world looks at you with a sense of distaste and dislike.

Back to the point, are you saying that if he didn't follow him he would still have been killed by him, exactly and that is no stretch.