So what in the hell does THIS...........

[lwien]

Yeah, they should have gone for manslaughter from the get go. 2nd degree murder was a bit too aggressive and could cost them the case.

When I first heard about this case, my first thoughts was that it was Martin who acted out in self-defense being that he was being stalked by an un-uniformed security guy in an unmarked car. And then, when the altercation took place, he saw the gun and again, may have reached for it acting in self-defense.

It was an altercation that could have been avoided if Zimmerman correctly identified himself, but he didn't. In the end, both men acted in self-defense. I don't think Zimmerman targeted him out of hate or racism. I think he thought he was just doing his job in protecting the neighborhood, but in so doing, not only allowing this thing to spin out of control, but also caused it to spin out of control.

That's not 2nd degree murder. That's manslaughter and that is what he should be charged with.

 

[t-dub]

Oh they overcharged, no doubt, thats a big reason for the cluster fuck so far . . . the evidence doesn't support it and the closing arguments/questions showed that.

Now the big question to put myself on the spot. Does he walk or does the judge get to sentence him for manslaughter . . .

ok . . . here is my opinion. I believe the evidence shows that TM initiated the dialog and subsequent combat by throwing the first punch and breaking GZ's nose. I also think the evidence supports TM being on top and applying a beat down on GZ. I think legally, at that point, with the laws in Florida regarding self defense, that the case for manslaughter is also not made.

 

[lwien]

ok . . . here is my opinion. I believe the evidence shows that TM initiated the dialog and subsequent combat by throwing the first punch and breaking GZ's nose. I also think the evidence supports TM being on top and applying a beat down on GZ. I think legally, at that point, with the laws in Florida regarding self defense, that the case for manslaughter is also not made.

You're a young kid walking home alone on a dark and rainy night. You are black and have experienced, either yourself or through others experiences, the hate and aggression that comes from racism. You notice a car following you. You then notice a white guy exiting that car and he continues to follow you. If I were TM, I too may have hid in the bushes and when the time was right, come out and throw the first punch rather than let this 'threat" get the upper hand on me.......in self defense.

Zimmerman had the power to never allow it to escalate to this point in first place but he chose not to and one person is dead because of that. Should he be let go without any penalty whatsoever?

 

[t-dub]

You're a young kid walking home alone on a dark and rainy night. You are black and have experienced, either yourself or through others experiences, the hate and aggression that comes from racism. You notice a car following you. You then notice a white guy exiting that car and he continues to follow you. If I were TM, I too may have hid in the bushes and when the time was right, come out and throw the first punch rather than let this 'threat" get the upper hand on me.......in self defense.

He is not white, he is Hispanic. I am sorry but your description of events has TM committing the first crime. The state's case does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt or moral certitude, imho, the case against GZ. However what the jury will decide . . .

Zimmerman had the power to never allow it to escalate to this point in first place but he chose not to and one person is dead because of that. Should he be let go without any penalty whatsoever?

TM also had choices to make that day, and time to act . . . its an unfortunate situation, no doubt, plenty of blame to go around.

Edit: I want to clarify that I am speaking from a legal standpoint here. I am not commenting on ethics or the morality of people's acts. So in answer to lwein's question about punishment in this case, I think the jury may take moral matters into their own hands and use manslaughter as a tool to do exactly what lwien described, and that is perfectly legitimate in my view, this is how case law is made. If GZ is convicted of manslaughter he better be ready for a long sentence.

Edit: Well it looks like the upcoming clarification on manslaughter for the jury will be pivotal. The whole case is going to hinge on whether the jury thinks it was self defense or manslaughter.

 

[t-dub]

The verdict is in . . . they are about to read it.

Edit: And he is NOT guilty . . . as I anticipated.

Edit: He wont be so lucky in the civil suit . . .

 

[Vicki]

Just come to Florida and commit murder if you want to get away with it. That should be the state slogan.

 

[t-dub]

I can't help but wonder, and of course the truth has no agenda, but I wonder if this was charged properly as a manslaughter case from the get-go if they would have been able to prove it. I was hoping the judge would unpack that question of law for the jury because I'm foggy on Florida's version of manslaughter "the act" but she rightly sent it back . . .

 

[lwien]

So I guess it's legal to bring a gun to a fist fight and use it, eh?

 

[t-dub]

lwien, second guessing the jury just shows sour grapes. Obviously they determined, using the evidence, that TM started a fist fight with someone who had a concealed handgun, and legally used it in self defense, or more accurately, that the state had not proved the opposite.

 

[lwien]

So if you are legally carrying a concealed weapon and someone starts a fist fight with you, you are within the law to draw your gun and kill him?

 

[Vicki]

So if you are legally carrying a concealed weapon and someone starts a fist fight with you, you are within the law to draw your gun and kill him?

I'm not sure, I don't know the law.

 

[AdmiralAlpacha]

If you honestly feel like your life is in danger, yes.

Edit: After doing a little more reading, it appears that in Florida you can if you feel your life is in danger, OR you might suffer major bodily harm.

The purpose of carrying a self defense weapon, is in fact to defend your life.

 

[t-dub]

lwien, these laws vary state by state and when you take your class they go over this kind of stuff. Also there are 2 cases, the criminal and the civil, where the burden of proof is quite different. I suggest if you are interested, read what the law in your state says and what the major decisions in the case law are. There is no way in hell I am going to give you a litmus test for "when you can shoot someone" because it doesn't exist except as what is specified in the law, which can be vague as we have seen today, and what is in the minds of the actors at the time the act is committed.

Edit: Better yet take a CHL class, you will learn a lot.

 

[Vicki]

 

[vaporonly]

So if you are legally carrying a concealed weapon and someone starts a fist fight with you, you are within the law to draw your gun and kill him?

hell yeah you can. are some of you opposed to this? do you know how many people die in fist fights?sometimes even a single punch can drop a person and they crack their heads on the cement...i'm a few blocks away from the sidewalk where a poor sap from out of town out celebrating with his race team died after getting punched once by a bouncer.

unless i'm misunderstanding this fantasy that a fist fight is a sanctioned event that a few blows are thrown, a winner is declared and everyone hugs and goes home.

in some states like florida even feeling like your life is in danger is reason for deadly force. some states laws say you have to run away, until it stops being a feeling....then you can defend yourself.

edited out my comments on the trail...enough opinions out there

 

[lwien]

hell yeah you can. are some of you opposed to this? do you know how many people die in fist fights?sometimes even a single punch can drop a person and they crack their heads on the cement...

I would think that people dying in fist fights is a pretty damn rare occurrence. Going by your logic, since one punch can drop a person on the sidewalk and kill them, than it's perfectly legal to pull out a gun even before that first punch is ever thrown, 'cause afterwards, it would be too late and it would be legal because you fear for your life that that one punch could kill you. Are you kidding me?

I've been in a few fist fights over the years ever since I was a kid and I can't imagine that it would be ok for anyone to pull a gun out and shoot me. That's insane.

From my point of view, you don't bring a gun to a fist fight anymore than you would bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

[vaporonly]

i'm totally ok with you disagreeing with me but it's not my logic, this is self defense law. to try to answer your question, in some states you are supposed to run (retreat) before punch is thrown. in florida and other states with no retreat laws you can act as soon as you FEEL you are in danger.

you asked very clearly if somebody comes up to you and starts punching you if you can shoot them with your ccw pistol. if you can't do this, then by this logic, why can you defend yourself with your fists?

how are you supposed to know what level of violence the attacker is going to stop at?

you are more then welcome defending yourself from attacks how ever you please, just don't think that there is some code out there where people only use fists or that a fist fight only ends with bruises. That could be a fatal mistake.

 

[lwien]

....why can you defend yourself with your fists?

Because your fists are lot less lethal than a gun?

 

[t-dub]

lwien, your problem is your mixing up social violence, like bullying or sport fighting that has rules, with asocial violence, or real violence, which has none.

 

[lwien]

lwien, your problem is your mixing up social violence, like bullying or sport fighting that has rules, with a-social violence, or real violence, which has none.

No I'm not. I did not have bullying or sport fighting in my mind when I made my statements above.

If someone breaks my nose in a fight outside of a bar at night, the last thing I would think about is pulling out a gun and shooting the guy that hit me because of a fear that the fight would escalate into a life threatening situation. Can you imagine how many murders would take place under the guise of self defense if everyone had a concealed carry permit and they felt justified to fire their weapon at anyone who hit them out of fear of an escalating fight?

I guess I just have a different mind-set with all this, which I guess isn't very surprising being how polarized our country is in regards to firearms.

I'm a gun owner. Own a 40mm and .357. Purchased them when the Rodney King riots broke out in LA. I was a district manager at the time of a retail electronics chain and a few of the stores that I had to visit was right near ground zero of where that riot started, so I felt justified to protect myself in that situation, both when I was out working in the field as well as when I was at home. That situation was the only time in my life that I ever actually felt threatened in the 69 years that I've been alive.

I've kept them for two reasons. One is that I enjoy going to the range. It's fun. Second is for protection in my home, but the last thing I would want is a concealed carry permit and be carrying around that firearm wherever I went. I just feel that there would be too many situations that could get very out of control, similar as to what happened between TM and GZ. If GZ wasn't carrying a weapon, there is a very good possibility that no one would have been killed that night.

 

[t-dub]

Wrong. He could have stabbed him just as easily. And the fact that you somehow differentiate between a bar fight and another kind of fight tells me you don't know the difference between the 2 types of violence I talked about. The fact that you seem "ok" with fighting outside of a bar says a lot.

 

[lwien]

He could have stabbed him just as easily.

But he didn't have a knife. All he had was a dangerous bag of skittles.

Are we saying that we should feel justified in pulling out a weapon based on the "assumption" that someone else has either a knife or a gun?

The fact that you seem "ok" with fighting outside of a bar says a lot.

I seem "ok" with that? And that says a lot? Woah..........

Where did I even imply that I thought it was "ok" with fighting outside of a bar? And even if I did, what does that say? Now I'm confused.

 

[t-dub]

If someone breaks my nose in a fight outside of a bar at night, the last thing I would think about is pulling out a gun and shooting the guy that hit me because of a fear that the fight would escalate into a life threatening situation. Can you imagine how many murders would take place under the guise of self defense if everyone had a concealed carry permit and they felt justified to fire their weapon at anyone who hit them out of fear of an escalating fight?

Your willingness to participate in social violence is on display here. The fact that you even feel it has merit, and don't view it as a crime, says a lot to me. Fighting is a crime, it has no social purpose what so ever.

And I meant GZ could have stabbed TM just as easily, maybe even more so, than shooting him.

Edit: If its the concealed part you don't like, bring back open carry. An armed society is a polite one.

 

[vaporonly]

I just feel that there would be too many situations that could get very out of control, similar as to what happened between TM and GZ. If GZ wasn't carrying a weapon, there is a very good possibility that no one would have been killed that night.

if martin would have gone home in the time zimmerman lost sight of him and the time martin went back to confront him then he would be alive today.

if martin didn't punch zimmerman and get on top of him and start bashing his head into the concrete and continue punching him, he would be alive today.

From ALL the evidence, this wasn't a case of an out of control ccw event at all....more like an out of control teenager.

You are absolutely right that having a CCW is a great responsibility, and not for everyone.

edit: i really don't want to encourage a long back and forth on this. you seem to understand self defense in regards to your riot experience.

the bottom line was the prosecution needed to prove without a reasonable doubt that zimmerman committed a crime. they didn't even come close, not by a mile.

 

[t-dub]

I find it interesting that GZ is now going to sue the media outlet that hacked/spliced his emergency services call to make it sound like he racially profiled TM and played it all over the media, I think it was NBC? Its because of all this, and the resulting racial outrage by Sharpton and Jackson, that caused the original people who weren't going to charge this case to quit (or were they fired?) and the "special prosecutor" who came in and overcharged. So who really is to blame for the cluster fuck? At this point I don't think the evidence would prove beyond a reasonable doubt or moral certitude that manslaughter was committed, but we will never have the rational, focused, hearing on it we should have had. And, it appears the prosecution withheld pictures (exculpatory evidence) from the defense and then fired the IT technician who tried to right the wrong . . . tsk-tsk, naughty naughty . . .