On March 29 2012 06:25 Renent wrote: I tried to read everything on this, but I have yet to find if EMS was called to the scene had any interaction with Zimmerman. This would seem to be the case where they would be especially careful to note zimmermans condition and any treatment given.
he was treated and then taken for questioning after treatment at the scene. i have not seen a medical records report, which is usually not disclosed due to privacy concerns.
I might be wrong here, perhaps daPhREAk could correct me, but for the most part doesn't this entire situation come down to who started the fight? I don't think anyone disagrees there was a fight of some kind, but whoever started it would be the person at fault here, and the person who most likely would be unable to claim self defense?
Also, at this time there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight, only the two participants, one of which is dead, and the other of which who would more than likely claim he was attacked whether it was true or not? Sure there are people who claim to have witnessed parts of the middle of the fight, and immediately after the fight, but I haven't heard of anyone who witnessed the entire fight, nor the beginning of the fight.
On March 29 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote: Has anyone else noticed what a farce the mainstream media is making this?
They use a five-year old photo of Zimmerman in an attempt to show him in a negative light. The photo they use is an old mugshot from an arrest (he wasn't convicted on btw). In that one, I agree, Zimmerman doesn't appear to be an upstanding citizen. BUT, in more recent photos (and ones where he hasn't been through the hell that is police booking), he looks like your average, decent citizen, not some crazy racist: Zimmerman Photo
They pull the same kind of crap with Trayvon's photos. The pic they use is years old. More recent photos of Trayvon show that he was not some helpless youngster. Remember, he was 17 when he was shot.
What I'm getting at, is that the media is not where this case should be settled. They explode, and turn local cases into such crazy circuses, we may never know the truth.
Instead of making it a national issue, how about we just let the courts handle it? Juries and judges are far more reasonable, and less prone to letting emotions control them than Al Sharpton or Spike Lee.
At any rate, whether Zimmerman is innocent or not, his life is effectively ruined. Everyone will remember the uproar about the case, but no one will remember in the end what the real result was. They'll automatically assume he was guilty. This will make it impossible for Zimmerman to do pretty much anything with his life.
Remember, Zimmerman may be innocent. We simply do not know; and we shouldn't let the media burn him at the stake until a court of law proves him guilty.
its a good point. Trayvon's more recent photos make me suspicious as to how the media portrayed him, there was a picture that i saw on a conservative newsfeed where he basically looked like a gangster. Sagged pants, underwear showing, a doo rag on his head etc. But i have no idea. Zimmerman does look normal, had no idea that the mugshot picture was years old.
Millitron, the problem was the courts did not handle this case appropriately initially. The only way this case got reopened was because of the family's protests and appeals that went outside of the criminal justice system, because the system did a cursory investigation, saw that a black man was involved in an altercation with a white man, and moved on.
On March 29 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote: Has anyone else noticed what a farce the mainstream media is making this?
They use a five-year old photo of Zimmerman in an attempt to show him in a negative light. The photo they use is an old mugshot from an arrest (he wasn't convicted on btw). In that one, I agree, Zimmerman doesn't appear to be an upstanding citizen. BUT, in more recent photos (and ones where he hasn't been through the hell that is police booking), he looks like your average, decent citizen, not some crazy racist: Zimmerman Photo
They pull the same kind of crap with Trayvon's photos. The pic they use is years old. More recent photos of Trayvon show that he was not some helpless youngster. Remember, he was 17 when he was shot.
What I'm getting at, is that the media is not where this case should be settled. They explode, and turn local cases into such crazy circuses, we may never know the truth.
Instead of making it a national issue, how about we just let the courts handle it? Juries and judges are far more reasonable, and less prone to letting emotions control them than Al Sharpton or Spike Lee.
At any rate, whether Zimmerman is innocent or not, his life is effectively ruined. Everyone will remember the uproar about the case, but no one will remember in the end what the real result was. They'll automatically assume he was guilty. This will make it impossible for Zimmerman to do pretty much anything with his life.
Remember, Zimmerman may be innocent. We simply do not know; and we shouldn't let the media burn him at the stake until a court of law proves him guilty.
its a good point. Trayvon's more recent photos make me suspicious as to how the media portrayed him, there was a picture that i saw on a conservative newsfeed where he basically looked like a gangster. Sagged pants, underwear showing, a doo rag on his head etc. But i have no idea. Zimmerman does look normal, had no idea that the mugshot picture was years old.
They had to take that picture down because it wasn't Trayvon. But yeah most of the pictures of him seem to be of his younger years.
Interesting question for you all: do you think, given the media eruption over the issue (and the constant, blatant misrepresentation of facts), that if this went to trial, that Zimmerman could even have a fair trial? The entire jury would have had to have been living under a rock to not already have a biased opinion of the issue at this point.
On March 29 2012 06:58 alQahira wrote: Millitron, the problem was the courts did not handle this case appropriately initially. The only way this case got reopened was because of the family's protests and appeals that went outside of the criminal justice system, because the system did a cursory investigation, saw that a black man was involved in an altercation with a white man, and moved on.
Even then, I don't really agree. They could've appealed to a higher court, instead of skirting the system.
At any rate, now that the case is being handled by the Feds, the media should absolutely step aside, because they have no concern for the truth. They just care about their ratings, and nothing boosts ratings like a murder trial.
On March 29 2012 07:02 Whitewing wrote: Interesting question for you all: do you think, given the media eruption over the issue (and the constant, blatant misrepresentation of facts), that if this went to trial, that Zimmerman could even have a fair trial? The entire jury would have had to have been living under a rock to not already have a biased opinion of the issue at this point.
No, I don't think he could possibly get a fair trial. I bring up this exact point every time the media latches onto a court case.
Last time was the Casey Anthony trial. I'm thankful that she was found innocent because I would always worry that the media got an innocent person jailed for life.
I think we need some kind of legislation about this, because it's unconscionable to let the media decide who is guilty and who isn't. I mean, if this continues, our system is no better than the Reign of Terror in 18th century France. It's practically a nation-wide lynch mob.
It's a very complex issue of race and gun control in the US, but this is all I have to say:
This was a tragedy, where an unarmed teenager was killed while simply walking in his neighborhood. I don't feel like debating, but merely to honor the kid's memory. RIP
On March 29 2012 06:33 Hawk wrote: More damning to his stand your ground/self defense claim is that if you are calling the cops on someone for being suspicious, you are presuming they are in the act of or about to be in the act of a crime. It is then probably safe to assume that he might be armed. Furthermore, if you see him 'reaching into his waistband' (as he stated at least once on the 911 call) it really hammers home the fact that the kid might be armed.
Why are you engaging a person who you called the cops on for being suspicious, and that person has his hand in his waistband and then his pocket??
Because Zimmerman was trying to protect his community ? He was trying to discern whether Trayvon was up to something illegal, thus asking him what he was doing. Following him is nothing more than observing and providing updated information to the police for when they get there. To ignore Trayvon, while obviously the safest for him personally, would leave Trayvon free to victimize others.
It is not about what his goal was, it is what he did: engaging someone who he thougth had commited or was about to commit a crime, and may have a weapon, judging by his 'hand in the waistband' comment. That is provoking, which it very specifically says is a no-no in the op's posting of the law
On March 29 2012 06:54 Saryph wrote: I might be wrong here, perhaps daPhREAk could correct me, but for the most part doesn't this entire situation come down to who started the fight? I don't think anyone disagrees there was a fight of some kind, but whoever started it would be the person at fault here, and the person who most likely would be unable to claim self defense?
Also, at this time there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight, only the two participants, one of which is dead, and the other of which who would more than likely claim he was attacked whether it was true or not? Sure there are people who claim to have witnessed parts of the middle of the fight, and immediately after the fight, but I haven't heard of anyone who witnessed the entire fight, nor the beginning of the fight.
yes and no.
generally, if you are the initial aggressor, you cannot claim self defense when the other person attacks you. however, in special circumstances, even if you are the initial aggressor then you can claim self defense. the pertinent jury instruction is below, but let me give you an example.
if i am at a bar and i tell another patron to go fuck himself and push him off his stool, he gets up and punches me and then i kill him. likely not self defense.
same situation, but the other guy gets up, smashes a bottle on the bar and starts towards me with the broken bottle in his hand. i back up and say "fuck, im sorry dude" and try to run away. he still comes at me with the bottle. then i kill him. this is an arguable self defense.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: ... 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
On March 29 2012 07:02 Whitewing wrote: Interesting question for you all: do you think, given the media eruption over the issue (and the constant, blatant misrepresentation of facts), that if this went to trial, that Zimmerman could even have a fair trial? The entire jury would have had to have been living under a rock to not already have a biased opinion of the issue at this point.
jury voir dire will remove anyone that knows about the case. and the case will likely never be tried in the county where the events occurred since there is so much media exposure. it will likely be moved to a different county that has had less exposure; maybe even a different state.
It's crazy all these discussions are going on when clearly Zimmerman is innocent. Seems some of the biggest points people come up is that the dispatcher said to stop following Martin and that because Zimmerman had a gun and Martin didn't it must be Zimmermans fault.
So, Zimmerman, even though the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow Martin, wasn't doing anything wrong. He was a neighborhood watch and if he wanted to follow someone in his neighborhood that he hasn't seen before he's more then welcome too. The only problem was when Zimmerman got out of the car, although still there is nothing wrong with that. There are no facts stating that Zimmerman starting attacking Martin first. Everything points to Martin jumping Zimmerman while he was tyring to get into his car and starting smashing his head on the ground. Witnesses point out Zimmerman was the one screaming for help, obviously because he was in danger. Even if when Zimmerman was out of the car and say punched Martin or did something aggressive towards Martin, it doesn't give Martin the right to jump on Zimmerman while he's getting back into his car and start smashing his head into the ground. It's only blown so out of proportion because it's a black unarmed kid.
I think people need to stop looking at ways why Zimmerman is Guilty, because with all the facts so far it clearly shows the many reasons why he's Innocent.
On March 29 2012 06:54 Saryph wrote: I might be wrong here, perhaps daPhREAk could correct me, but for the most part doesn't this entire situation come down to who started the fight? I don't think anyone disagrees there was a fight of some kind, but whoever started it would be the person at fault here, and the person who most likely would be unable to claim self defense?
Also, at this time there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight, only the two participants, one of which is dead, and the other of which who would more than likely claim he was attacked whether it was true or not? Sure there are people who claim to have witnessed parts of the middle of the fight, and immediately after the fight, but I haven't heard of anyone who witnessed the entire fight, nor the beginning of the fight.
yes and no.
generally, if you are the initial aggressor, you cannot claim self defense when the other person attacks you. however, in special circumstances, even if you are the initial aggressor then you can claim self defense. the pertinent jury instruction is below, but let me give you an example.
if i am at a bar and i tell another patron to go fuck himself and push him off his stool, he gets up and punches me and then i kill him. likely not self defense.
same situation, but the other guy gets up, smashes a bottle on the bar and starts towards me with the broken bottle in his hand. i back up and say "fuck, im sorry dude" and try to run away. he still comes at me with the bottle. then i kill him. this is an arguable self defense.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: ... 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
In Florida, under your 2nd scenario, you would not have to back away to claim self defense.
On March 29 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote: Has anyone else noticed what a farce the mainstream media is making this?
They use a five-year old photo of Zimmerman in an attempt to show him in a negative light. The photo they use is an old mugshot from an arrest (he wasn't convicted on btw). In that one, I agree, Zimmerman doesn't appear to be an upstanding citizen. BUT, in more recent photos (and ones where he hasn't been through the hell that is police booking), he looks like your average, decent citizen, not some crazy racist: Zimmerman Photo
They pull the same kind of crap with Trayvon's photos. The pic they use is years old. More recent photos of Trayvon show that he was not some helpless youngster. Remember, he was 17 when he was shot.
What I'm getting at, is that the media is not where this case should be settled. They explode, and turn local cases into such crazy circuses, we may never know the truth.
Instead of making it a national issue, how about we just let the courts handle it? Juries and judges are far more reasonable, and less prone to letting emotions control them than Al Sharpton or Spike Lee.
At any rate, whether Zimmerman is innocent or not, his life is effectively ruined. Everyone will remember the uproar about the case, but no one will remember in the end what the real result was. They'll automatically assume he was guilty. This will make it impossible for Zimmerman to do pretty much anything with his life.
Remember, Zimmerman may be innocent. We simply do not know; and we shouldn't let the media burn him at the stake until a court of law proves him guilty.
That is basically what I said in an earlier post regarding the media. They take whatever information they have and use it in whatever way serves them best. They are a disgrace.
On March 29 2012 07:02 Whitewing wrote: Interesting question for you all: do you think, given the media eruption over the issue (and the constant, blatant misrepresentation of facts), that if this went to trial, that Zimmerman could even have a fair trial? The entire jury would have had to have been living under a rock to not already have a biased opinion of the issue at this point.
jury voir dire will remove anyone that knows about the case. and the case will likely never be tried in the county where the events occurred since there is so much media exposure. it will likely be moved to a different county that has had less exposure; maybe even a different state.
It gets tried in the same state or not at all. Extradition rights and all that. Different county maybe, but even if it was in a different state it wouldn't escape the media problem, it's been all over the news all over the country.
That said, you can't voir dire the entire jury and boot everyone.
On March 29 2012 07:20 SidianTheBard wrote: It's crazy all these discussions are going on when clearly Zimmerman is innocent. Seems some of the biggest points people come up is that the dispatcher said to stop following Martin and that because Zimmerman had a gun and Martin didn't it must be Zimmermans fault.
So, Zimmerman, even though the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow Martin, wasn't doing anything wrong. He was a neighborhood watch and if he wanted to follow someone in his neighborhood that he hasn't seen before he's more then welcome too. The only problem was when Zimmerman got out of the car, although still there is nothing wrong with that. There are no facts stating that Zimmerman starting attacking Martin first. Everything points to Martin jumping Zimmerman while he was tyring to get into his car and starting smashing his head on the ground. Witnesses point out Zimmerman was the one screaming for help, obviously because he was in danger. Even if when Zimmerman was out of the car and say punched Martin or did something aggressive towards Martin, it doesn't give Martin the right to jump on Zimmerman while he's getting back into his car and start smashing his head into the ground. It's only blown so out of proportion because it's a black unarmed kid.
I think people need to stop looking at ways why Zimmerman is Guilty, because with all the facts so far it clearly shows the many reasons why he's Innocent.
It's not crazy to think Zimmerman isn't, as you put it, 'clearly innocent'.
He was in the wrong in the first place when there was nothing concrete happening to rouse so much suspicion. I have stated this in a post prior to this, and will reiterate that Zimmerman's judgement of suspicion is questionable. Sure, everyone can get a little suspicious, that's natural; but enough to follow and then question someone walking in the neighbourhood?
Second, the police were notified, and on their way. Zimmerman had no valid reason to take justice into his own hands and try to enforce the law. Others have also echoed this position. There was no immediate danger to anybody until he decided to be a superhero.
This isn't to say that Zimmerman is guilty of all charges. It's just not that black and white. It should not be everyone wanting Zimmerman dead (though there are many) and everyone claiming Zimmerman to be 'clearly innocent' (too many of this as well).
Again, how much in the wrong was Zimmerman? Not as much as many would wish, it was an unfortunate turn of events. But the real solution is to prevent such future incidents rather then just punishing this one and forgetting about it.
No one knows if Zimmerman is innocent or not except Zimmerman, who has no reason to tell you anything except he is innocent, whether it is true or not.
We don't know who started the fight, there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight, and there are no witnesses to the shooting or the entire fight, from beginning to end, except for Zimmerman, who is like I said, biased.
Can we get past all of these claims that it is obvious he is clearly innocent or clearly guilty?
I personally believe the entire focus should shift from the endless speculation about who did what and who started the fight. This is best left to forensics, the pathologist or whoever has any tools at his disposal to discern the hard facts.
What the nation should focus on instead is the SYG law and especially, in a nutshell, if it is considered OK for an armed person to shoot an altogether unarmed person, i.e. someone who doesn't even grab a rock or a stick.
"Reasonable belief" of whatever won't cut it, it's too vague and subjective and a giant mess.
On March 29 2012 07:02 Whitewing wrote: Interesting question for you all: do you think, given the media eruption over the issue (and the constant, blatant misrepresentation of facts), that if this went to trial, that Zimmerman could even have a fair trial? The entire jury would have had to have been living under a rock to not already have a biased opinion of the issue at this point.
jury voir dire will remove anyone that knows about the case. and the case will likely never be tried in the county where the events occurred since there is so much media exposure. it will likely be moved to a different county that has had less exposure; maybe even a different state.
It gets tried in the same state or not at all. Extradition rights and all that. Different county maybe, but even if it was in a different state it wouldn't escape the media problem, it's been all over the news all over the country.
That said, you can't voir dire the entire jury and boot everyone.
i am not entirely sure of the logistics of changing venue in criminal trials, but there is certainly precedent for moving it to a different state (not sure if this is only federal crimes though). you are correct though that they will try to keep it in the same state if at all possible.
In the trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the court granted a change of venue, and ordered the case transferred from Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado presided over by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch.
as for voir dire, if they cant find an unbiased jury, they will excuse the jury pool and call a new jury pool and start voir dire over again. if you fail to get an unbiased jury then the defendant will have an automatic appeal of any subsequent trial.
He was in the wrong in the first place when there was nothing concrete happening to rouse so much suspicion. I have stated this in a post prior to this, and will reiterate that Zimmerman's judgement of suspicion is questionable. Sure, everyone can get a little suspicious, that's natural; but enough to follow and then question someone walking in the neighbourhood?
Second, the police were notified, and on their way. Zimmerman had no valid reason to take justice into his own hands and try to enforce the law. Others have also echoed this position. There was no immediate danger to anybody until he decided to be a superhero.
This isn't to say that Zimmerman is guilty of all charges. It's just not that black and white. It should not be everyone wanting Zimmerman dead (though there are many) and everyone claiming Zimmerman to be 'clearly innocent' (too many of this as well).
Again, how much in the wrong was Zimmerman? Not as much as many would wish, it was an unfortunate turn of events. But the real solution is to prevent such future incidents rather then just punishing this one and forgetting about it.
The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong. There is nothing wrong with following someone in your car, getting out and questioning that person. He's neighborhood watch, he hasn't seen the kid before, if he wants to question him he's more then welcome too. Martin doesn't have to answer him if he doesn't want to, he can easily ignore him and keep walking or just say "I'm going to my girlfriends". There is no evidence of Zimmerman doing anything dangerous towards Martin to allow Martin to tackle him and start smashing his head into the ground.
So, from what we can tell, Zimmerman got out of his car, talked to Martin, was going back to his car and then he got jumped and at that point his life was at risk, hence the screaming for help and all the blood & bruises he sustained.
EPT
