George Zimmerman "Not Guilty" (case, criminal, shooting, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mentioned this a few pages ago, but in case anyone reading this missed it, former LEO here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
Actually it could make a difference whether Zimmerman was the aggressor. One key point is that in a fair trial, based on real, hard evidence, there should be pretty much no way that the prosecution can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. That is, unless there is some really key piece of evidence the public knows nothing about, which seems unlikely, the way reporters manage to dig up every bit of information.
Another point is that even if Zimmerman were the aggressor, it would have to have been a very serious aggression for the law to say Martin would have been justified in responding with an attack as severe as the one he launched on Zimmerman. The evidence--no injuries to Martin other the gunshot wound itself, to name one such piece of evidence--indicates that such serious aggression by Zimmerman most likely did not occur. Even if it did, the prosecution will have a tough time truly proving this.
Still, in theory, serious enough aggression by Zimmerman, even it probably did not occur and would be nearly impossible to prove with the available evidence, would have justified Martin's actions as self-defense (Martin defending himself).
In a sense, Zimmerman was the aggressor without ever throwing a punch. He knew he had his gun as well as gun laws on his side...
This is fine if the purpose of a discussion at a forum such as this is to vent feelings along with expressing opinions about how things should be. The above thought on Zimmerman as the aggressor “[in] a sense” is too general for legal purposes. The law is concerned with details—as many as can be known—about what happened at any critical stage of an incident. The key stage of this incident from a legal perspective is the point at which the two principals came face to face. The salient legal question is who actually did what at that point, as in what actions each person directed toward the other, not as in the general feel someone’s actions might have contributed to the situation.
Of course the fact that the moment of, and moments immediately following, the initial face-to-face encounter are critical makes this case difficult to discuss in depth in a forum like this one, because that is exactly the stage about which the least is known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseX
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
In a sense, Zimmerman was the aggressor without ever throwing a punch. He knew he had his gun as well as gun laws on his side...
Being the aggressor is irrelevant to the statute.
It's not the gun law on his side though it is. Ostensibly it is the self defense law. He'd be just as covered if the weapon was a spork.
Being the aggressor can make all the difference. It depends on the circumstances. Check the link “Use of force by aggressor” which Virgode provides in post 1042:
"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who . . . :
(2) . . . Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant . . ."
The passage just quoted is from the Florida statute, but it basically states in part a general legal principle about self-defense:
a) that the initial aggressor is not entitled to claim self-defense as justification for use of force (if you are the initial aggressor, the other person has a right to defend himself, and you can’t claim self-defense if you then use force to counter the force the other guy uses in defense against your initial aggression)
except that
b) if the initial aggression involves force mild enough that it is unlikely to cause either death or serious harm, the victim of the initial aggression is not entitled to defend himself with force likely to cause death or serious harm, and if he does, then the initial aggressor may claim self-defense and may use deadly force in self-defense.
A key point in this case is that the attack Trayvon Martin inflicted upon George Zimmerman was more vicious than some here have been willing to acknowledge. Being pummeled in the face and about the head is no joke. You could have bones broken in your face. You could lose teeth. You could be blinded if a blow landed so the attacker’s knuckles hit directly against one of your eyes. You could suffer brain damage. You could even be killed. The law unquestionably would allow the use of deadly force against such an attack if the attack was unlawful. The only way for such an attack to be lawful would be if the attack were self-defense against the other person’s initial aggression, and that initial aggression (or imminent threat of aggression) was so severe that it would be likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.
What this means in this case is that:
a) if Zimmerman made the first aggressive move once the two came face to face, and if that aggressive move involved either an attack so severe it would likely cause serious bodily injury or death (e.g., inflicting an attack on Martin similar to Martin’s attack on Zimmerman), or the imminent threat (as in face to face and Martin better move right now to defend himself or he will be under attack) of such a severe attack (e.g., Zimmerman has drawn his gun and is pointing it at Martin), then the law would allow Martin the right to defend himself with the level of force he used against Zimmerman
but
b) if Zimmerman either was not the initial aggressor when the two first came face to face (as Zimmerman claims) or was the initial aggressor but did nothing more than, for example, approach close to Martin and demand to know what Martin was doing around there, or maybe give Martin a shove, then Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman would legally be regarded as excessive for the purpose of self-defense under the circumstances, and Martin would legally be viewed as an aggressor in an unlawful attack sufficiently violent to cause serious injury or death, allowing Zimmerman the legal right to defend himself with deadly force.
All of which is complicated by the fact that, as I observed above, this most critical stage of the incident is the stage about which the least is known.
Being the aggressor is irrelevant because one can lose that status.
The story, forensic evidence that has been acknowledged so far and the witness statements are pointedly cementing the fact that, whether or not he was an aggressor, he wasn't the aggressor when the shot was fired.
Therefore, irrelevant.
Edit: I see you address this issue but that does not change the fact that ultimately it is still irrelevant. Doesn't seem to that the the prosecution is effectively pushing that point.
As to being a former leo. Not trying to be insulting or minimize your unverified claim but its common knowledge that cops are rather undereducated when it comes to the law. See YouTube...
Claiming leo status does not bolster your argument. Though that doesn't mean they don't ocassionaly have that knowledge...
True, but he was not "required" to follow him either. Serino asked him more than once during the interrogation (if you listened to the audio) why he didn't roll down his window just once and tell the young man he was following that he just wanted to know if he lived there since he was with the neighborhood watch. Then he also said that following someone who is running "doesn't sound like fear." (or "isn't fear" .. I don't recall the exact words)
If you are so fearful of someone that you won't even talk to him, why follow him? Sure, it's not illegal to follow someone, but it is very creepy, especially if that person doesn't say anything. I live in a very safe neighborhood and I'd feel exactly the same way if I were being followed.
Last edited by justNancy; 07-01-2013 at 10:54 PM..
Trying to find a good reasonable dentist, my son just moved to New York and just found out our dental care ins wont cover him out of state. We already paid $1000 on a $1800 root canal and cant afford to pay any more he also needs another root canal. Is going to the dental school a good idea or a free clinic? I don't want to compromise health but can't afford the high dental bills.
Trying to find a good reasonable dentist, my son just moved to New York and just found out our dental care ins wont cover him out of state. We already paid $1000 on a $1800 root canal and cant afford to pay any more he also needs another root canal. Is going to the dental school a good idea or a free clinic? I don't want to compromise health but can't afford the high dental bills.
Why is this being posted in the True Crime forum? I think it should be a crime for a dentist to charge so damn much (I'm sitting here with a toothache as I type) but it isn't!
Being the aggressor is irrelevant because one can lose that status.
The story, forensic evidence that has been acknowledged so far and the witness statements are pointedly cementing the fact that, whether or not he was an aggressor, he wasn't the aggressor when the shot was fired.
Therefore, irrelevant.
Edit: I see you address this issue but that does not change the fact that ultimately it is still irrelevant. Doesn't seem to that the the prosecution is effectively pushing that point.
Glad you cleared that up. In fact, I agree that the prosecution has insufficient (real, hard, genuine) evidence to come remotely close to proving a case against Zimmerman. In fact, what evidence there is regarding those critical moments when they came face to face tends to support Zimmerman. Doesn't mean he'll be acquitted, because there is no way to know whether the jury will act based strictly on the law, or will base their decision on emotion. Legally, though, Zimmerman should be acquitted.
By the way, I'm not anti-Zimmerman or pro-Zimmerman, or particularly on anyone's "side" in this. I'm on the side of the law. If we get so we accept having cases like this decided by the public's sentiment, we have nothing better than mob rule. If it's possible for people here to think beyond this one case, they may understand why I believe that moving toward a legal system based on public sentiment (mob rule) would be a bad road to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseX
As to being a former leo. Not trying to be insulting or minimize your unverified claim but its common knowledge that cops are rather undereducated when it comes to the law. See YouTube...
Claiming leo status does not bolster your argument. Though that doesn't mean they don't ocassionaly have that knowledge...
Been through this already, many pages ago.
There is a member (not AnonymouseX, another member) who has not posted here in the last few pages, but who made a number of posts several weeks and months ago in which he challenged the assertions of me and a current LEO with whom he disagreed. That member stated as if he knew it to be fact that no one without a law degree was qualified to discuss this knowledgeably.
Thing was, he actually acknowledged in several posts that he knew pretty much nothing about the legal issues. This begs the question of how he felt that he knew who knew what about the law. He was like a guy who didn't know a carburetor from a camshaft who was presenting himself as an authority on who was qualified to discuss auto mechanics. It was painfully obvious that the guy had no basis to say who knew what, but had just conveniently set the bar higher than the most knowledgeable people posting here frequently who disagreed with him.
In fact, the particular issues of use of force and self-defense actually are right in territory that cops know like the proverbial backs of their hands. I've mentioned, some many, many pages ago that I placed at the top of my police academy class, but in reality anyone who knew his stuff well enough to graduate would be well grounded in laws about use of force, because it's covered thoroughly in basic training.
What's more, cops--all cops--then put this basic knowledge to practical use very frequently. Any time you deal with a case of battery or assault, or an incident that involves people fighting, you deal with laws regarding use of force in determining what, if any, charges to bring, and against whom. As a final check, you know whether you got the charges right, because the case is not going to court until the D.A. approves.
Cops in fact deal hands on with these very issues so often that this is one of the worst areas of law in which to challenge a LEO's knowledge. In any case, I'm sure some fairly brief research on the internet would confirm, for anyone interested in checking, that I know very much what I'm talking about.
Last edited by ogre; 07-01-2013 at 11:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
