Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[Terralthra]

However, if you're a shade of white and was knocked down and still being attacked by an unarmed black teenager then shooting him is not OK.

Or if you say that's what happened, anyway.

All we know is that there was an altercation. We don't know who started it, who knocked who over, and who was attacked by or still attacking whom. What we do know is that one guy was following an unarmed teenager around for wearing a hoodie, got out of his car to continue to follow him, and some time later, shot him.

The irony of Zimmerman's brother saying he fears that vigilantes will take the law into their own handa is so thick it oozes.

[Zaune]

Well, if that other kid Trayvon was talking about "sharing a .380" with was at all ambivalent about owning a handgun before, he sure as hell isn't now.

[Kamakazie Sith]

However, if you're a shade of white and was knocked down and still being attacked by an unarmed black teenager then shooting him is not OK.

Or if you say that's what happened, anyway.

Right. I was hoping for a manslaughter conviction but the only way they could do that is if they were able to show Zimmerman started the physical fight. Being followed is not a good reason to assault someone and someone appearing to be suspicious isn't a good reason either.

All we know is that there was an altercation. We don't know who started it, who knocked who over, and who was attacked by or still attacking whom. What we do know is that one guy was following an unarmed teenager around for wearing a hoodie, got out of his car to continue to follow him, and some time later, shot him.

According to the witness, John Good, it was Martin on top of Zimmerman. This was determined because the witness was close enough to see the color of the clothing the two were wearing. Martin was uninjured, besides the gun shot wound and abrasion to his finger. So, your summary is basically correct except we do know that at some point Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman never landed a blow that caused identifiable injuries. That doesn't mean Zimmerman never did land a blow though because he could have but something like a bruise didn't have time to manifest because Martin was killed shortly after.

The irony of Zimmerman's brother saying he fears that vigilantes will take the law into their own handa is so thick it oozes.

Zimmerman should avoid appearing suspicious to overzealous neighborhood watch members.

[Channel72]

Jesus - this is really an archetypal case of the "spirit" of the law failing miserably. The reality is that self-defense is often simply too complicated to prosecute, because hundreds of mitigating factors that contributed to the shooting are simply lost to history, and exist only as subjective recollections of biased people.

Really though, the few objective facts in this particular case seem pretty damning to me, and I'm surprised (I guess I shouldn't be) that Zimmerman wasn't at least convicted of manslaughter. He basically instigated a fight with an unarmed teenager by following Trayvon, and then ended up shooting him. And of course, Trayvon probably did get pissed off and threaten Zimmerman, like most normal human beings probably would in that scenario. This is pretty much the ideal case for a manslaughter conviction.

For me, the damning fact is that there's very little Trayvon could have possibly done to put Zimmerman's life in danger. This isn't a case of some elderly woman defending herself from a thief or rapist. These were two men (actually a teenager and a man), except one of them was armed with a deadly weapon and the other wasn't. Maybe Trayvon threatened to throw Skittles at him or something.

Sigh. I can only hope that the fallout from this is limited, and doesn't result in vigilante outrage.

[Simon_Jester]

God you're a fucking idiot. The state turned over the evidence they were under no obligation to decrypt it for the defense.

Is that the state of the law in Florida? The state of law in general across the country? Because I can see that backfiring really easily. Just because in this case we think the prosecution should win, doesn't mean we should want the state to routinely be able to dump unreadable evidence on the defense and say:

"There, now you get it decrypted again. We know what the evidence says, but if you want to know too, you have to pay extra."
_____________________

The frustrating part here is that it seems very likely, as in I would bet at long odds, that Zimmerman provoked Martin, harassed him, and went out of his way to get into a physical (unarmed) fight with him, then shot Martin when he started to lose that fight. But we cannot know this one way or the other, because there weren't enough witnesses to the events, and we run smack into "innocent until proven guilty."

[mr friendly guy]

Actually I would like to do one better than Bobalot. Could I claim self defence if the guy supposedly had hands in his pocket and I claim I was afraid he was reaching for a gun? In which case can't I just shoot anyone and say he looked like he was reaching for a weapon?

Do you reasonably believe this person to be a serial rapist?

You really want to go down this route? Lets ignore for a moment apparently just appearing suspicious is justification enough to get into an altercation and then claim self defense. Lets ignore that this is a pathetic ad hominem. But lets go on.

Are you saying that if I suspected the person to be some other criminal (lets say a lesser crime) the "self defense" argument no longer works and its suddenly not ok to empty a gun into him for trying to get out a wallet? But lets say that the police did follow the right suspect and is the suspected rapist. Is it suddenly ok for them to fire bullets into him for reaching into his pocket? I thought innocent until proven guilty and all that? If its still not ok, then pointing out the guy might be a suspected rapist is a red herring. If you think its ok and are desperately trying to find a reason to justify it ie he is a terrorist suspect, <insert crime here> suspect, by all means continue. I am sure <insert crime here> suspect will be able to act like Jet Li in "The One" and totally trash the cops armed with a wallet.

Keep in mind the fact that those four officers were indicted by a grand jury for charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment but were later acquitted of all charges by a mixed race jury.

So the answer to my question is yes, but the killer might have to appeal before it gets sorted out favourably. Thanks for clarifying that up.

Elfdart example makes me laugh. So, apparently it is OK for a black man to confront an unarmed white teenager and then shoot him in the face while both are still standing. .

Unless you a reading a different article, the teenager actually tried to knock the gun out the way first.

However, if you're a shade of white and was knocked down and still being attacked by an unarmed black teenager then shooting him is not OK..

The outrage might have something to do with the fact Zimmerman did his fair share to provoke the confrontation, whereas in the above case, the black man was facing wankers on his own property. Just saying.

[aerius]

In the original thread I said there was no way Zimmerman was going to get convicted UNLESS the jury was stacked against him or he blabbed something stupid to the cops, DA, or media.

Florida law defines murder 2 as follows:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

You could try to argue aggravated stalking, but good luck proving that given the lack of and contradictory eyewitness accounts. So murder 2 is off the table. The evidence is inconclusive to say the least, and that's being generous.

So we move on the Manslaughter which is defined as follows:

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.

Part 1 looks like it should apply, so let's see what chapter 776 says. It's pretty long so I'll quote the relevant sections.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Now for those of you who say "but Zimmerman started the fight!" well, guess what, the following section of chapter 776 applies

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Manslaughter is now off the table as well.
The jury's decision, like it or not, is the correct one under Florida law. Not guilty. If you don't like it, don't live in Florida. You can bet your ass I ain't gonna be visting Florida. Ever.

[fgalkin]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3f6_1373681050

Guess what, Trayvon Martin was killed by JOOOOOOOOOOOS

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Channel72]

Now for those of you who say "but Zimmerman started the fight!" well, guess what, the following section of chapter 776 applies

Meh. It's still pretty subjective, but I think the facts here lean heavily towards Zimmerman being in the wrong.

(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; or

To me, it's stretching credulity for Zimmerman to claim that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed 17-year old who weighed almost 30 lbs less than him.

And what kind of precedent is this setting anyway? I suppose I can just walk into a bar in Miami, call someone an asshole, and then shoot him in the face if he responds aggressively.

[Simon_Jester]

Since a 17-year-old is pretty much fully developed as a rule, and the extra thirty pounds of Zimmermann consist of a big pile of lard, I'm not going to assume Martin couldn't take Zimmerman in a fight. It is not unreasonable for Zimmerman to have believed he'd come out of that with broken bones, facial damage, or brain injuries if he was in fact down on the ground with Martin on top of him.

The problem is not that Martin was unable to pose a physical threat to Zimmerman; the problem is that Zimmerman shouldn't have gone out of his way to do some kind of bizarre vigilante crap that resulted in him getting into a fight with someone who could kick his butt.

And yes, this sets a really bad precedent. The Florida law seems to be saying that if you start a fight and are losing badly, you are justified in pulling a weapon, and deaths resulting from that aren't murder or even manslaughter. At the very least, provoking someone into attacking you and then killing them should be manslaughter.

[Elfdart]

(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; or

To me, it's stretching credulity for Zimmerman to claim that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed 17-year old who weighed almost 30 lbs less than him.

He is quite a drama queen: He claimed the shooting was "God's plan", after all. And like so many vigilante types, he's not exactly alpha male material, so a few bumps and scrapes from a scuffle with a teenage boy must have seemed like impending death.

And what kind of precedent is this setting anyway? I suppose I can just walk into a bar in Miami, call someone an asshole, and then shoot him in the face if he responds aggressively.

Just make sure there aren't any witnesses, and that your skin is lighter than the victim's.

[aerius]

Now for those of you who say "but Zimmerman started the fight!" well, guess what, the following section of chapter 776 applies

Meh. It's still pretty subjective, but I think the facts here lean heavily towards Zimmerman being in the wrong.

It is, but then we're back to the problem of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt which is what's required for a criminal conviction. The prosecution failed to lay out a proper chain of events that would result in a manslaughter or murder 2 conviction, but more importantly they failed to prove that chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don't do that then the only reasonable outcome is a not guilty verdict.

To me, it's stretching credulity for Zimmerman to claim that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed 17-year old who weighed almost 30 lbs less than him.

It's very easy to say for someone who hasn't been there. I've practiced martial arts for over 20 years and taken various self-defence classes, you have no idea how horrifying it is to be pinned on the ground with someone on top of you trying to cause you bodily harm, even in a controlled practice situation. If you're not trained, you will be panicking and shitting your pants if you can't get the other person off of you within the first few seconds.

And what kind of precedent is this setting anyway? I suppose I can just walk into a bar in Miami, call someone an asshole, and then shoot him in the face if he responds aggressively.

If it meets the requirements of chapter 776 in Florida, then yes. If he drops you with a punch to the face and walks away you can't get away with shooting him. But if he shoves you against a wall and keeps punching you even after you beg him to stop you're now free to ventilate him. Don't like it? Don't live there, or in any other redneck state with similar laws.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You really want to go down this route?

Yes, that's why I posted it.

Lets ignore for a moment apparently just appearing suspicious is justification enough to get into an altercation and then claim self defense. Lets ignore that this is a pathetic ad hominem. But lets go on.

It sounds like you're trying to compare your hypothetical with the police shooting. In your hypothetical you have no reason to suspect that this person is dangerous. The police on the other hand thought this person was a serial rapist who was wanted for rape and robbery of women and was well armed (meaning this rapist was using firearms).

Are you saying that if I suspected the person to be some other criminal (lets say a lesser crime) the "self defense" argument no longer works and its suddenly not ok to empty a gun into him for trying to get out a wallet?

Exactly. It's the same reason why police generally don't draw down on shoplifters unless there is a reason to believe they are armed.

But lets say that the police did follow the right suspect and is the suspected rapist. Is it suddenly ok for them to fire bullets into him for reaching into his pocket? I thought innocent until proven guilty and all that?

It's not suddenly OK. That has been case law longer than you've been alive. If you've been given an order by the police you need to obey that order. Not run off and then reach into your pockets instead of doing what you're told.

Here's an informative study on the cognitive process of shoot don't shoot situations. They even talk about the Diallo shooting.

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/st ... or-not.pdf

The conclusions of this study were as follows;

1. Contrary to much popular opinion, average people exhibited extreme difficulty in
distinguishing a handgun from an innocuous object such as a power tool.
2. This difficulty was observed even under ideal viewing conditions, far superior to those in
actual crime situations.
3. Average people indicated an overwhelmingly strong tendency to shoot, or at least to decide
to shoot, an armed perpetrator themselves if given the opportunity, and did so at the same
levels even if the perpetrator was “armed” only with a power tool which was evidently
readily mistaken for a weapon.
4. However, even though the vast majority of the civilian respondents indicated a readiness to
shoot the perpetrator themselves, only about 1 person in 10 felt it would be appropriate for
the police to do so under the same circumstances.

Now Diallo did not pull out a power tool. However, what this does tell us is that mindset plays a powerful role in the perception of movements. In the case of Diallo he ran when he was approached by the officers and this would have a powerful effect on their mindset.

If its still not ok, then pointing out the guy might be a suspected rapist is a red herring. If you think its ok and are desperately trying to find a reason to justify it ie he is a terrorist suspect, <insert crime here> suspect, by all means continue. I am sure <insert crime here> suspect will be able to act like Jet Li in "The One" and totally trash the cops armed with a wallet.

The cops didn't say "WALLET" when they saw him and opened fire. It was poorly lit and they thought the object he pulled out was a gun.

So the answer to my question is yes, but the killer might have to appeal before it gets sorted out favourably. Thanks for clarifying that up.

The answer is no. In your scenario it would not be reasonable for you to believe this random person is a dangerous felon.

Unless you a reading a different article, the teenager actually tried to knock the gun out the way first.

I did. So, when someone fails to knock a gun out of the hand of a black man it is OK for this black man to shoot them in the face. However, it is not OK for a non-black man to shoot a person in the chest when they're being straddled, punched, and this person is perceived to try and grab his gun.

The outrage might have something to do with the fact Zimmerman did his fair share to provoke the confrontation, whereas in the above case, the black man was facing wankers on his own property. Just saying.

Oh I understand. I think Zimmerman is an idiot. However, in the above case this black man left the safety of his home to confront people yelling and making threats towards his son. He then shoots one in the face after this one tries to knock it out of his hand. He shoots this kid in the face while he is uninjured, still standing, and after a failed attempt to knock, not take, the gun away.

[Replicant]

To me the entire case boils down to a simple question. How much force can someone use to protect himself from an ass kicking whether or not he/she provoked it?

Also anyone want to guess the outcome if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? He was down already and being straddled by someone in better shape, who had at least some knowledge of how to fight. Grayson was smashing him in the face and slamming his head into the pavement. When does it end? When Zimmerman is unconscious with a cracked skull? Is it possible that this encounter was going to end in a death or serious hospital trip whether or not a gun was involved?

[Haruko]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3f6_1373681050

Guess what, Trayvon Martin was killed by JOOOOOOOOOOOS

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

As a disillusioned nationalist under the Weimar Republic, I speak for quite a few people when I say, well, yeah, and I bet they weren't just any Jews, either, but those particularly nefarious Ostjuden.

[chitoryu12]

To me the entire case boils down to a simple question. How much force can someone use to protect himself from an ass kicking whether or not he/she provoked it?

Also anyone want to guess the outcome if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? He was down already and being straddled by someone in better shape, who had at least some knowledge of how to fight. Grayson was smashing him in the face and slamming his head into the pavement. When does it end? When Zimmerman is unconscious with a cracked skull? Is it possible that this encounter was going to end in a death or serious hospital trip whether or not a gun was involved?

Who the hell is Grayson?

Assuming you mean Trayvon, Zimmerman's injuries (according to the medical examiner) were actually relatively minor compared to the claim that Martin was beating the shit out of him and trying to kill him with his bare hands. In fact, they would have been quite consistent with a single punch and Zimmerman's head hitting the curb when he fell. Unless Martin is just a very weak puncher.

Also, the laws regarding lethal force against an unarmed attacker require the attacker to be older, much bigger, much stronger, much better in fighting, and/or in greater numbers than the victim. Considering the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, it's highly debatable whether Zimmerman was in any danger of being killed by Trayvon without being able to defend himself.

[Rogue 9]

God you're a fucking idiot. The state turned over the evidence they were under no obligation to decrypt it for the defense.

Is that the state of the law in Florida? The state of law in general across the country? Because I can see that backfiring really easily. Just because in this case we think the prosecution should win, doesn't mean we should want the state to routinely be able to dump unreadable evidence on the defense and say:

"There, now you get it decrypted again. We know what the evidence says, but if you want to know too, you have to pay extra."

Seems to be routine from where I sit. When I was going through the lawsuit against me a couple of years ago, the plaintiff's discovery package was a cardboard box filled with roughly 500 pages of poor quality photocopies, some of which were completely unreadable.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also, the laws regarding lethal force against an unarmed attacker require the attacker to be older, much bigger, much stronger, much better in fighting, and/or in greater numbers than the victim. Considering the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, it's highly debatable whether Zimmerman was in any danger of being killed by Trayvon without being able to defend himself.

Citation for this requirement?

It doesn't really matter though. During his interview with police Zimmerman never says that the beating was the reason why he shot Trayvon. He says he shot him because he believed Trayvon saw his gun and tried to grab it.

That is a possibility. It's also a possibility that Trayvon, while defending himself, saw the gun and tried to disarm Zimmerman to protect himself. However, that's speculation. All we have in the uninjured Martin, the injured Zimmerman, the witness that confirms part of Zimmerman's statement.

[Meest]

The prosecutors just sucked in regards to thinking they had a solid murder case, the key point to justifiable manslaughter when the person is not badly injured is the exhaust all other means of retreating or stopping the violence. They could have proved that by using the point that at the alleged part when Zimmerman shot him it was impossible to reach the gun, and Zimmerman's decision to shoot was only after he thinks he went for a gun that was under his body out of sight. If they literally quoted the law like it was here, and put this point there it would be way more powerful than saying, "use common sense" jury. They had another minor point where in the video of Zimmerman walking through with the police, he admits he kept going in the direction of Martin, then quickly adds Martin was coming right for me and came out of non-existent bushes (which he could only have seen if he was moving or facing the fight direction not retreating to his car), again show the definition of manslaughter on a board like the burden of proof the defense showed. The jury had to ask to clarify manslaughter, that's how unclear they presented the case and appealed to their emotions.

[TheHammer]

When I first heard this story it definitely seemed slanted in such a way that Zimmerman seemed to provoke the incident and thus should at least have been guilty of manslaughter. I was as quick as anyone to believe the narrative that a racist Zimmerman went vigilante against the black guy in his neighborhood. But as more information has come out, it now also seems plausible that Martin, feeling he was threatened or just pissed off that some guy was treating him as a criminal, also started the fight and that things went more or less how Zimmerman said they did. Anyone who says they can't see such a scenario is lieing or delusional.

I don't for one minute believe that the Jury acquited Zimmerman because Martin was black and they don't care. They acquited him because the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case that Zimmerman's account of events was false. There is absolutely reasonable doubt in this case and the "Not Guilty" verdict perfectly justified. If there was evidence to show Zimmerman to be lieing it either wasn't collected by police, or it wasn't presented by the prosecution.

[TheHammer]

The prosecutors just sucked in regards to thinking they had a solid murder case, the key point to justifiable manslaughter when the person is not badly injured is the exhaust all other means of retreating or stopping the violence. They could have proved that by using the point that at the alleged part when Zimmerman shot him it was impossible to reach the gun, and Zimmerman's decision to shoot was only after he thinks he went for a gun that was under his body out of sight. If they literally quoted the law like it was here, and put this point there it would be way more powerful than saying, "use common sense" jury. They had another minor point where in the video of Zimmerman walking through with the police, he admits he kept going in the direction of Martin, then quickly adds Martin was coming right for me and came out of non-existent bushes (which he could only have seen if he was moving or facing the fight direction not retreating to his car), again show the definition of manslaughter on a board like the burden of proof the defense showed. The jury had to ask to clarify manslaughter, that's how unclear they presented the case and appealed to their emotions.

I agree I think they overshot going for the murder charge. If Zimmerman had no injuries, as initial photos had appeared to show, then obviously a murder charge was warranted. After? Then the best you could hope for was mansalughter and to take the angle that Zimmerman started the fight. I know there is some debate as to the significance of his injuries, but the photos I've seen would represent what i'd consider the good start to an ass beating - and likely were only going to get worse.

[Flagg]

I don't know, Zimmerman claimed to have been punched in the face 35-40 times. If Trayvon had been 5 I could believe that. And in Sanford Zimmerman would have been acquitted then, too.

[aerius]

The prosecutors just sucked in regards to thinking they had a solid murder case, the key point to justifiable manslaughter when the person is not badly injured is the exhaust all other means of retreating or stopping the violence.

Once again, good luck proving that. The physical evidence points towards Zimmerman being flat on his back on the ground, and witness testimony says that Martin was mounted on top of him and striking or attempting to strike him. This means that at that point, all means of retreating on the part of Zimmerman are exhausted. You're then left with arguing that Zimmerman still had ways of stopping the violence short of using deadly force, but given the lack of reliable eyewitness accounts and physical evidence there's no way to prove that either.

So once again we're back to presumption of innocence and standards of proof. Given the evidence and testimony which was available, there was no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the chain of events would fit manslaughter or murder 2. Can't prove it? Not guilty. Simple as that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The prosecutors just sucked in regards to thinking they had a solid murder case, the key point to justifiable manslaughter when the person is not badly injured is the exhaust all other means of retreating or stopping the violence. They could have proved that by using the point that at the alleged part when Zimmerman shot him it was impossible to reach the gun, and Zimmerman's decision to shoot was only after he thinks he went for a gun that was under his body out of sight. If they literally quoted the law like it was here, and put this point there it would be way more powerful than saying, "use common sense" jury. They had another minor point where in the video of Zimmerman walking through with the police, he admits he kept going in the direction of Martin, then quickly adds Martin was coming right for me and came out of non-existent bushes (which he could only have seen if he was moving or facing the fight direction not retreating to his car), again show the definition of manslaughter on a board like the burden of proof the defense showed. The jury had to ask to clarify manslaughter, that's how unclear they presented the case and appealed to their emotions.

In the video there are bushes.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/f ... n-shooting

You can see one in the background. He said he was walking back when Martin called out to him which caused him to turn around and he concluded that Martin must have been hiding behind one of those bushes because he didn't see him.

Other than that I agree with you. They should have focused on the claims made by Zimmerman regarding the assault and the position of his holster and firearm and included a demonstration.

[mr friendly guy]

You really want to go down this route?

Yes, that's why I posted it.

The fact that this can all too easily be used as an ad hominem doesn't bother you?

It sounds like you're trying to compare your hypothetical with the police shooting. In your hypothetical you have no reason to suspect that this person is dangerous. The police on the other hand thought this person was a serial rapist who was wanted for rape and robbery of women and was well armed (meaning this rapist was using firearms).

So basically to "get away with it" er I mean have a justification for following them and claiming self defence is that I thought they matched the description of <insert crime here> suspect. Now that I know that it has to be at least serial rapist level (although Zimmerman's looks suspicious was sufficient for this case), I will be sure to keep that in mind.

Are you saying that if I suspected the person to be some other criminal (lets say a lesser crime) the "self defense" argument no longer works and its suddenly not ok to empty a gun into him for trying to get out a wallet?

Exactly. It's the same reason why police generally don't draw down on shoplifters unless there is a reason to believe they are armed.

So I am sure every wannabe vigilante will be keep that in mind next time. Note to self. Can't just claim they are suspected of shoplifting. Must claim they are suspect of a greater crime. And armed of course.

It's not suddenly OK. That has been case law longer than you've been alive. If you've been given an order by the police you need to obey that order. Not run off and then reach into your pockets instead of doing what you're told.

You are essentially turning it around and saying its not ok to shoot the suspect, but look, the suspect ran off (ignoring for a moment the police were in plain clothes as the time and anyone can claim to be plains cloth police). Am I to infer that somehow makes it better, or you want to change the topic to the suspect now? If its still not ok as you say, then bringing up the fact the suspect ran off may explain things, but does not justify it, no?

Here's an informative study on the cognitive process of shoot don't shoot situations. They even talk about the Diallo shooting.
<snip>

I will be sure to quote this study saying that its easy to mistake non guns for guns as justification then. Didn't know about that. Thanks. Although the part about how the public expected a higher standard from police (who frankly should have training) might not be quite applicable to the police, but certainly is to any wannabe vigilante or any killer who wants to play the self defense card.

Now Diallo did not pull out a power tool. However, what this does tell us is that mindset plays a powerful role in the perception of movements. In the case of Diallo he ran when he was approached by the officers and this would have a powerful effect on their mindset.

Correct, he didn't pull out a power tool, which would question how relevant the study is to this case. But I can also turn it around and say Diallo ran away from 4 guys in plains clothes and he had no way of knowing whether they were really plains clothes police or any other guy on the streets. He might have pulled out his wallet wanting to say just take my money and leave me alone.

The cops didn't say "WALLET" when they saw him and opened fire. It was poorly lit and they thought the object he pulled out was a gun.

Not a problem in the scenario. Just claim you thought he was pulling out a gun. The guy is dead and no longer able to give his version of events.

The answer is no. In your scenario it would not be reasonable for you to believe this random person is a dangerous felon.

And what is to stop me or any wannabe vigilante claiming that? Zimmerman certainly believed Martin was dangerous because... why he just looked like it and that certainly wasn't a big factor against Zimmerman.

You don't seem to get where we non Americans are coming from. My arguments aren't so much whether Blacks or Whites are unfairly treated, its that the law is structured in such a way where one person can kill another person and justify it as self defense where the other guy isn't around to present his version of events. I can justify following someone because they are "suspicious" in my subjective opinion. I can shoot them on the grounds that I thought they were reaching for a gun. Just to be on the safe side, I should clarify I thought they were a serial rapist or <insert serious crime here> suspect rather than just suspicious. If I claim the latter I need to get into a fight and start losing first. Have I missed out anything. Oh yeah, I will quote that study how its hard for people to distinguish guns from power tools even if they guy didn't have a gun or a power tool. Just to be safe.