At the moment, from what I understand about this case, it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation. Would he have done the same thing if he did not carry a gun?

If he wanted to act like a cop he should have been one and not end up in a situation like this. As far as we know, Trayvon wasn't committing a crime so why the pursuit? He could have just written down Trayvon's description, take a pic from his cell and then talk to the police. But no, he decided to be a nut-ball to confront Trayvon, end up in a struggle that forced him to kill.



Wasn't Zimmerman following him in his vehicle? But if it did turn out that Trayvon was the aggressor then it is different but we'll find out eventually won't we?



Of course he'll still be hated but not as much. I'm going out on a limb here but if he ended up in the right and did no wrong, the main haters will be the African Americans. I have a feeling that no matter which way the case goes, Zimmerman will be hated by many of them in comparison with the rest of the country.

He's screwed.

To put it bluntly, If he was completely in the right, I hold nothing against him. But if he walks for any other reason, my perception of him would be tainted and thus would have a hard time considering him to be a decent person.

---

ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

"Peppercorn Tomatoes slathered in broken guacamole sauce. Put it in the microwave and press puree. 5 seconds in the dumpster and it is ready to be cooked in the freezer at -350 degrees for twenty minutes. Apply pressure in various hamster spots and scream like a psychotic banshee." My reply when asked what was on my mind.

By the sacred crotch of Arkvoodle!

On THC blood serum levels:


While it is from a pro-marijuana legalization political group, it is well-sourced from peer-reviewed studies, and reading some of the cites from JSTOR (can't repost for copyright concerns), they are not misrepresenting the research. In short, THC blood serum (or even whole blood levels) of 1.5 ng/ml are detectable up to 8 hours after using marijuana, and for up to a week for chronic users. Such levels do not typically result in noticeable impairment.

Not sure. Haven't really seen any evidence of it, but Trayvon did approach Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his SUV. It's at the one minute mark:

So hypothetically if Gil allowed such gang members to corner him while backing away (ie no reasonable means of escape are left), and the gang members still continue to come (ie Gil can believe that he is in imminent danger) then its A-ok? Just want to clarify that.

---

Master : Do you know who your parents are?
Hero : Aren’t I an orphan?
Master : No. <Insert details here>. BTW, your parents were killed by the Master of the girl you like. So you can’t marry her now.
Hero : Noooo
I describe this as soap opera with Chinese characteristics and I love it.

That's probably an accurate reading from when his heart stopped as well, so yeah you're probably right.



I don't recall if Zimmerman articulated the suspicious behavior. Some behavior of intoxicated individuals that I've seen is trying the doors of homes and cars because they're confused.



You missed a part of that, Gil. When you create a situation in which a reasonable person would be able to determine that deadly force would be needed to get yourself out of that situation. Your fictional scenario fits. My stepping in front of a car scenario fits. Zimmerman's does not.



No, because that other person still initiated the attempt to kill you. They are still responsible for that action. You're responsible for being reckless.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

Even if he did intiate a verbal confrontation with Martin it still doesn't reach the level of Zimmerman reasonably knowing that Martin would try to kill him. That's what matters. That's why I gave the example of stepping in front of a car. Talking with a person that you find suspicious doesn't reach that level. Though it could depend on how Zimmerman started the confrontation.



Who knows. Part of me thinks we will never hear the whole story.



That's what I mean. Many people have already made up their mind and no court ruling or thorough investigation will change that.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

Of course it does. Zimmerman pursued Martin for the express purpose of confronting him over criminal behavior, despite having absolutely no evidence that Martin was doing anything remotely criminal*. He created a situation where violence was a distinct possibility, not Martin. If Zimmerman had behaved like a reasonable person, Martin would not be dead right now. That's why the Sanford police wanted to have Zimmerman brought in on manslaughter charges.

*Unless you can prove that Martin was acting in a way that a reasonable person would conclude was suspicious and thus worth stalking and confronting over. If you can do so, please do.


But I created the situation where it was possible to happen, in the case of my scenario, deliberately, and being reckless is not a crime. What this amounts to, based on your logic, is that it is entirely possible to contrive situations where a person could seek out and randomly murder people and get away with it, just as long as they could provoke the person they are seeking to shoot into a violent encounter. Or am I missing something? In my scenario, you'd let me go, having committed no crime despite deliberately seeking out someone for the sole purpose of shooting them. Is that correct?

---

"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter

In my examples, and your gang example, a reasonable person would conclude a strong possibility of death or serious bodily injury resulting from their actions. It doesn't apply to any situation in which any form of violence is a possibility. Are you saying that Zimmerman should have reasonably concluded that his decision to follow and confront Martin would likely result in deadly violence against him?



Wrong, in your scenario your reckless actions resulted in the death of numerous people. That is a crime. It is called manslaughter. To charge them with murder with any hope of a conviction the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intentionally or knowlingly created the situation so you could kill these men. I don't see how that could be done because ultimately they decided and acted on their decision to murder you.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

seems pretty reasonable to me - he was acting far beyond his remit and had been told not to follow by the 911 person.

---

"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Market forces are a good servant but a poor master." - Zaune

Acting far beyond your remit and not following the instruction of a 911 caller is not part of the prerequisite.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

Absolutely. Remember, Zimmerman had come to the conclusion that Martin was a criminal, somehow, and was out to confront him on that basis, hence violence was a strong possibility. Zimmerman had a firearm, which by its very nature escalates potential violence into potential deadly violence, simply by its presence. After all, that Zimmerman had a gun and was chasing him is a pretty compelling reason why Martin tried to overpower him and beat him. Zimmerman caused this entire situation, when he easily could have avoided.

Tell me, KS, don't you even feel a bit weird that in a scenario where a paranoid nutcase with a firearm chases unarmed teenager and ends up shooting him that you are defending the paranoid nutcase?


You said yourself, they didn't have to attack me in my scenario and insulting people isn't a crime. You put all responsibility on them before. In my scenario, I did knowingly and intentionally create the scenario so I could kill those men. Yet I'd walk scot free, particularly given Arizona's "Stand Your Ground" law... it might not even go to trial, because the police probably can't demonstrate based on the immediate evidence that I had done anything wrong.

It was reckless of me to start the encounter in the first place, you are denying above that merely starting an encounter where violence is a possibility is enough. Or are you conceding that Zimmerman did commit at least manslaughter, since his own reckless actions lead to the death of a person?

---

"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter

If he doesn't, I would kind of understand that. Policemen who really are doing what Zimmerman thought he was doing chase unarmed suspects every day. There's no murderous intent there, but sometimes they get attacked anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if KS, or someone KS knows, had actually had the experience of chasing an unarmed person on foot only for them to freak out, decide they were "rattlesnake cornered", and launch a counterattack.

That is a thing that can happen to people who, because of their job, have to go chasing after people who may be unstable, violent, or just... hyped up on natural testosterone, really.

You still aren't grasping this concept. It doesn't matter what you are carrying. What matters is whether the situation itself is likely to force you to resort to deadly force to remove yourself from the situation. Positioning yourself in front of a fleeing car. Seeking out extremely violent gang members and insulting them. Jumping into the middle of a fight where you are outnumbered.

Following one person who is acting suspicious and confronting them is not a situation in which I would see the likely outcome is them trying to murder me.

Confronting someone engaged in any crime is not a situation in which I would see the likely outcome is them trying to murder me, otherwise, police would approach all persons engaged in any criminal activity with guns drawn.



A persons call history is not a diagnosis for mental illness. Also, I think Zimmerman is an idiot but my position is whether he broke the law or acted in a manner that made his use of deadly force unjustified. Under current Florida law it does not appear that way.

You keep going back to any violence. This case law doesn't specify any violence. It specifies putting yourself into a situation in which it would be obvious to a reasonable person that deadly force would be needed to remove yourself from it. Confronting your typical suspicious person or petty criminal doesn't reach that level otherwise police would be justified in pointing guns at shoplifters, assault suspects, etc.



I didn't put all the responsibility on them before. Are you paying attention?

When you posted this scenario I said "I'm not aware if there is case law when it comes to your average joe citizen but there is case law that a police officer will be found unjustified in the use of deadly force if it is discovered that the police officer created the situation in which deadly force was needed. IE - Positioning yourself in front of a moving car, jumping into the middle of a large fight without sufficient numbers."

How you conclude that means that I'm placing all the responsibility on them is aggravating. In your scenario your use of deadly force would be unjustified because you engaged in action that is likely to result in your needing to use deadly force to remove yourself from that situation.

I'm not sure how the stand your ground laws apply to the case law that I'm talking about. I'm still researching it. This case law might only apply to police officers so this entire conversation could be irrelevant.



I said at the very start that your use of deadly force in the gang scenario would not be justified and that's because you're provoking a situation in which you will have to use deadly force to remove yourself. Even though that is what happened in with Zimmerman's situation that was not the likely outcome...at least in my opinion.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

What makes this troubling is this:

For a real police officer, pursuing an unarmed but suspicious individual on foot is part of their job description. There is some small chance that doing so will lead to violence, even deadly violence- but the police officer still has a mandate to do it. Sure, he's provoking a situation where there's some risk of violence. That's considered acceptable because society needs him for that job, and because he's part of a disciplined, organized force that is supposed to train him to think about when to do it and when not to do it.

Zimmerman (or a random civilian) does not have that mandate. He was not required to go chasing after someone he decided was suspicious. He was not subject to any discipline, organization, or training. So for him to act in a way that creates that same small chance of violence might be less acceptable.

It's the same way that we expect police officers to restrain strong, violent, drunken men, and physically remove them from areas where they're unwelcome. Even though that could lead to violence. If a private citizen walks up to the same man and says and does the same things as the policeman, he could reasonably be accused of having provoked a fight.

Here, a real police officer caught in the same circumstances would have a stronger defense against manslaughter charges than Zimmerman, because the real police officer is doing his job when he tries to intercept and interrogate a person wandering around and night. Zimmerman's actions were borderline vigilantism. When vigilantes provoke fights and use deadly force to get out of them, I think we should have very little forbearance for that.

Not legally less acceptable. Zimmerman following and even verbally confronting Martin doesn't damage Zimmerman's self defense claim. However, if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin then his actions become criminal because as far as I can tell Zimmerman had not witnessed a crime and had not articulated why Martin was suspicious.

If police had arrived on scene for the suspicious person call that Zimmerman had reported they couldn't detain him. They could speak to Martin but he could leave if and when he wanted to unless the officers developed reasonable suspicion that Martin was going commit a crime, had committed a crime, or was in the process of committing a crime.



Incorrect. An average citizen can make an arrest if he/she witnesses a crime or an attempted crime. A violent drunk man would meet these requirements and that citizen could use reasonable force to effect that arrest.



I agree on your general point. I don't when it comes to Zimmerman/Martin only because it isn't clear what happened.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

To me, the whole thing... it has the smell of vigilantism. I'm not a jury, blah blah blah, insert disclaimers here. But it's very hard for me to construct a mental model of Zimmerman's mindset that I would want to see duplicated. There's no evidence whatsoever that Martin had any criminal intent, or intent to do anything at all other than walk home with his bag of Skittles. Zimmerman made the conscious decision to follow Martin, first in a car and then on foot, because... what, exactly? What stood out about the man so much?

I'm trying to make allowances for bias on my end here, but I have a hard time making sense of Zimmerman's actions except as "itching to start a confrontation with a Designated Bad Man, which happened to (not surprisingly) turn violent." He did go pretty far out of his way to create the situation that* ended with a panicking teenager beating him into the ground and him shooting Martin in the chest.

I don't think the penalties for manslaughter would be out of line as a punishment for behaving that way- for making a choice, one that a reasonable person should not have made, which led to confrontation, violence, and death.

Unfortunately, the charge is second degree murder, which makes it more likely that Zimmerman will walk... [growls]
_______________

*Being as generous to him as possible

Let me play devil's advocate again. Let's say Martin's walking home with his Skittles, but...what if he's not walking on the sidewalk? What if Martin is walking across people's front lawns, or maybe he's stoned out of his mind and walking in zig-zags down the street? Normal people don't do that, so if you saw someone who was doing the above you'd probably wonder WTF is going on with him. If he's walking across everyone's front lawns you might suspect that he's up to no good and looking for a house to break into, and if he's zig-zagging down the street the logical conclusion is he's drunk off his ass or high as a kite.

In either case it would be reasonable to phone him in for public intoxication/suspicious behavior and/or go up to him and say "excuse me sir, is everything ok here? You cool?" And maybe that's what Zimmerman did before Martin tried to beat his head into the concrete sidewalk. Is this what happened? We don't know, and until more evidence comes out we won't know.

He wasn't stoned out of his mind. The autopsy toxicology makes that clear.

Here's surveillance video from multiple angles of him at the 7/11:



It shows him kinda ambling in one direction, turning around, walking in the opposite direction, turning around and walking back... Full shot starts at about 3:30.

he walks to the back of the store, looks in a freezer and then wanders around the store. Shit, I've never done that! Whenever i go to a strange store I always walk straight it, make my way unerringly to the snack i might not have decided on yet, and promptly purchase and march out the door.

---

"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Market forces are a good servant but a poor master." - Zaune

No, I mean the part after he makes his purchase.

oh, you mean about the 5.30mark he walks back to the same freezer, picks up a dollar or something on the floor, and then decides not to buy it and walks out the shop.

christ for we know he might really have wanted ice cream, but not been sure if he could get it home without melting.

mate, you're really stretching for something on this one.

---

"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Market forces are a good servant but a poor master." - Zaune

Considering Zimmerman referred to Martin as a fucking (something) in his phone call to police, I find it hard to believe he was suddenly oh so nice when confronting him.

---

Master : Do you know who your parents are?
Hero : Aren’t I an orphan?
Master : No. <Insert details here>. BTW, your parents were killed by the Master of the girl you like. So you can’t marry her now.
Hero : Noooo
I describe this as soap opera with Chinese characteristics and I love it.

You're correct. Zimmerman has yet to articulate exactly what this suspicious behavior was.



This part I'm not clear on because I thought Zimmerman said he was attacked from behind as he was walking back to his truck. If that's true then that doesn't really follow with "itching to start a confrontation".



Even with manslaughter you'd have to show that a reasonable person would have concluded that his/her actions would result in the death of somebody. Like shooting wildly down a city street. Confronting a someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood. Not so much.

I understand your frustration. The system is design is intended to give an innocent person the best chance even at the expense of guilty person walking free.

---

Milites Astrum Exterminans

What frustrates me in this case is the bone-deep sense that it's going to be viewed by a disgusting subset as open hunting license on 'suspicious characters' in their neighborhood. Most of the victims of that are probably going to be black, and this will tend to reinforce the perception among blacks that the American legal system really isn't looking out for them.

All of which is bad, and all of which is probably going to happen regardless of the details of the case or whether Zimmerman is legally guilty of a crime.