Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[styrgwillidar]

ETA: Sorry vz71, I was skimming as well and trying to catch up and didn’t notice the exchange after your initial comment.

You may have a hard time selling that particular line to every police officer in the US that carries their gun as part of their job.

Likewise your logic fails as well for all of those that regularly carry their weapon for nothing more then defense.

If you will go back and read my post, I was pointing out that many folks who seem to think Zimmerman must be guilty of something seem to focus on the fact he was carrying a gun. It’s not my logic, but appears to be the logic of a lot of hoplophobes. They project their preconceptions onto others vice understanding the actual mind-set involved.

I agree with you, as I stated in my post- law abiding folks who choose to carry CCWs are the least likely to get into a confrontation. There is a lot of thought and soul searching put into that decision for the vast majority who go through the process to get a CCW and exercise their right (well, in those jurisdictions which graciously allow their subjects to avail themselves of it…) to have the means available to defend themselves.

My point being, that these folks will ignore all evidence and focus on the gun-carrying as some kind of inherently evil act.

Its as if every woman who carries a gun to protect against rape actually wants someone to try and rape them. That they’ll deliberately seek out situations where they’re more likely to be attacked. Ridiculous.

 

[St_Francis]

If you will go back and read my post, I was pointing out that many folks who seem to think Zimmerman must be guilty of something seem to focus on the fact he was carrying a gun. It’s not my logic, but appears to be the logic of a lot of hoplophobes. They project their preconceptions onto others vice understanding the actual mind-set involved.

I agree with you, as I stated in my post- law abiding folks who choose to carry CCWs are the least likely to get into a confrontation. There is a lot of thought and soul searching put into that decision for the vast majority who go through the process to get a CCW and exercise their right (well, in those jurisdictions which graciously allow their subjects to avail themselves of it…) to have the means available to defend themselves.

My point being, that these folks will ignore all evidence and focus on the gun-carrying as some kind of inherently evil act.

Its as if every woman who carries a gun to protect against rape actually wants someone to try and rape them. That they’ll deliberately seek out situations where they’re more likely to be attacked. Ridiculous.

Great analogy, Stygwlidar.

 

[St_Francis]

Ok, I paraphrased that poorly.

Judge Debra Nelson said she would revisit the matter at the trial’s end

Did she? Or, I dunno, I think of the end of the trial being after the jury has returned a verdict, but maybe she meant before closing arguments?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Did she? Or, I dunno, I think of the end of the trial being after the jury has returned a verdict, but maybe she meant before closing arguments?

My understanding is the same, at a hearing on a motion by the defense for sanctions due to prosecution discovery violations the judge deferred a decision until after the trial. Not sure of the reasoning.

 

[Dawnia]

Did she? Or, I dunno, I think of the end of the trial being after the jury has returned a verdict, but maybe she meant before closing arguments?

She is taking up the issue of the State not turning over evidence after the verdict.

 

[MaryT777]

Nor should a Neighborhood Watch captain end up beaten and in fear of his life.

You seem to be taking extraneous aspects of the situation and applying them. What about the central fact: that Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk and punched him?

How safe would you feel if someone were straddling you and beating your head against a sidewalk?

TM could very well have feared for his life being followed in the rain when he was doing nothing. We don’t know what happened and was said between Zimmerman and whether or not he confronted Martin.

We do know Z didn’t even identify himself as Neighborhood Watch. He acted as a police officer. I don’t do that so I’m not concerned about my safety.
I don’t see one person and decide if there’s crime in my neighborhood that could be one of those persons that always “gets away.”

It’s explicitly clear that the dispatcher said “we don’t need YOU to do that” Follow him.

Has any police officer testified you should follow around suspects in your neighborhood,
get out of your car to follow ? NO. If fact it was testified there are NO circumstances you should be doing so.

 

[ringil]

WOW, maybe they will give this guy manslaughter.

 

[kelvinf]

Did she? Or, I dunno, I think of the end of the trial being after the jury has returned a verdict, but maybe she meant before closing arguments?

That’s the source: myfoxorlando.com/story/22833284/state-attorney-employee-fired-in-zimmerman-case

 

[styrgwillidar]

This is why they have judges whose job it is to evaluate the evidence before the case goes to trial. The Duke Lacrosse case may have been an anomaly, I don’t know that much about the case. Given the large number of cases that go to trial, I think the legal system does a good job in filtering cases.

Well, I know a few people who’ve gone bankrupt trying to defend themselves and given up. Folks who are innocent but get so tired they take a plea. Like the football player who pled guilty in a plea bargain because, even though innocent, the severe penalty he would have faced should the jury go against him.

In many ways, the legal system is actually a system of extortion. The state has enormous resources to bring to bear-- you’ve got your bank account. If they’re wrong, no personal cost to them, but you’ll spend your life savings fighting the charges.

How much politics plays into charges depends on the jurisdiction and the DA.

 

[estesbob]

But how does Martin see the gun if Zimmerman is laying on top of it? And how does Zimmerman manage to get it out of his holster?

Why does it matter? The law says all that is necessary tho use deadly force is to fear for your life.

 

[Tucker_R]

Wow… I think Zimmerman was actually justified considering that he was having his head bashed in. I would’ve shot tm too.

TM could very well have feared for his life being followed in the rain when he was doing nothing. We don’t know what happened and was said between Zimmerman and whether or not he confronted Martin.

We do know Z didn’t even identify himself as Neighborhood Watch. He acted as a police officer. I don’t do that so I’m not concerned about my safety.
I don’t see one person and decide if there’s crime in my neighborhood that could be one of those persons that always “gets away.”

It’s explicitly clear that the dispatcher said “we don’t need YOU to do that” Follow him.

Has any police officer testified you should follow around suspects in your neighborhood,
get out of your car to follow ? NO. If fact it was testified there are NO circumstances you should be doing so.

 

[styrgwillidar]

TM could very well have feared for his life being followed in the rain when he was doing nothing. We don’t know what happened and was said between Zimmerman and whether or not he confronted Martin.

Agreed. However, we do know that Martin initiated the conversation.

We do know Z didn’t even identify himself as Neighborhood Watch.

Agreed. But if you listen to the tape, there wasn’t much time for Z to respond, the noise changes right after he initially responds to M.

He acted as a police officer.
Disagree. He acted like a neighborhood watch person. It doesn’t give him any additional authority, its not something I would invoke in talking to somebody. If he was thinking like a cop, I would have expected him to cite his authority vice simply asking a question.

I don’t do that so I’m not concerned about my safety.
You never are near other folks who ask you a question? You never respond to folks who ask you a question? You’ve never had anyone startle you by appearing at night out of the rain/darkness? You never walk in your neighborhood at night?

I don’t see one person and decide if there’s crime in my neighborhood that could be one of those persons that always “gets away.”

Well, ok. But you’re not someone who was approached by other neighbors about the series of crimes in the neighborhood and break-ins. Perhaps they never occur in your neighborhood? I don’t suppose you’re a neighborhood watch volunteer, know the folks normally in your neighborhood. Notice what’s unusual and what’s normal?

It’s explicitly clear that the dispatcher said “we don’t need YOU to do that” Follow him.

Its explicitly clear that Z, responded- Ok, they always get away, and then coordinates meeting with the responding officers. There is evidence that Z stopped following.

Has any police officer testified you should follow around suspects in your neighborhood,
get out of your car to follow ? NO. If fact it was testified there are NO circumstances you should be doing so.

No, but the SPD neighborhood watch coordinator testified that those instructions didn’t preclude, nor were they intended to preclude following at a safe distance. And there was testimony that the HOA sent a letter of thanks to construction crew members who did just that. And the dispatcher himself testified he believed Z had in fact stopped following after Z initially left the car to obtain info requested by the dispatcher. By the dispatcher’s testimony, a reasonable action in response to the dispatchers request.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Neighborhood watch captains are not police officers. If Zimmerman is acquitted there is an important boundary to be learned between acting as a police officer with perceived suspects and being a police officer.

Again, I do not know what actually happened.

However, there is nothing to indicate the Zimmerman acted like a police officer other than our own projections on what may have occurred. He did not initially approach M, he did not try and cite some type of authority he didn’t have, He did in fact call the police. He did in fact tell the dispatcher he intended to meet with the arriving police. He did not attempt to apprehend, intimidate, or detain M. There is no concrete bit of evidence to indicate any law enforcement type action on his part. He called the professionals.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Nor should a Neighborhood Watch captain end up beaten and in fear of his life.

You seem to be taking extraneous aspects of the situation and applying them. What about the central fact: that Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk and punched him?

How safe would you feel if someone were straddling you and beating your head against a sidewalk?

Martin’s actions in beating Zs head against the cement would be justified if Zimmerman attacked him first. It would be self-defense. Where is the evidence that actually occurred? Therein lies the problem, and why, whatever the verdict, it will be unsatisfying because we can not know with certainty.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Why does it matter? The law says all that is necessary tho use deadly force is to fear for your life.

It would mean that GZ is lying in an attempt to safe his butt. It would also support my contention that GZ may be a gunslinger who was always out for blood.

 

[styrgwillidar]

No, this was evidence provided in court. Many modern buildings have the addresses in large print and well lit.

Actually, one of the witnesses testified that the addresses were poorly marked and hard to see through the shrubbery, and street signage was difficult to find.

Although, as others have pointed out there are only a few streets, and their names do remain constant. (don’t change every block, or as they change direction.)

 

[styrgwillidar]

It would mean that GZ is lying in an attempt to safe his butt. It would also support my contention that GZ may be a gunslinger who was always out for blood.

Yet, never attacked or assaulted any of the other folks he called in about.

Why do you contend he’s a ‘gunslinger’?

What does that mean to you?

Do you believe carrying a gun where it is legal is any different than any other safety precaution one takes to deal with low probability of occurrence but high negative consequence events?

 

[MaryT777]

ETA: Sorry vz71, I was skimming as well and trying to catch up and didn’t notice the exchange after your initial comment.

If you will go back and read my post, I was pointing out that many folks who seem to think Zimmerman must be guilty of something seem to focus on the fact he was carrying a gun. It’s not my logic, but appears to be the logic of a lot of hoplophobes. They project their preconceptions onto others vice understanding the actual mind-set involved.

I agree with you, as I stated in my post- law abiding folks who choose to carry CCWs are the least likely to get into a confrontation. There is a lot of thought and soul searching put into that decision for the vast majority who go through the process to get a CCW and exercise their right (well, in those jurisdictions which graciously allow their subjects to avail themselves of it…) to have the means available to defend themselves.

My point being, that these folks will ignore all evidence and focus on the gun-carrying as some kind of inherently evil act.

Its as if every woman who carries a gun to protect against rape actually wants someone to try and rape them. That they’ll deliberately seek out situations where they’re more likely to be attacked. Ridiculous.

My experience is not the same. I’ve heard very few people say that he chose to carry a gun is the problem. It’s defining what the responsibility of a citizen is and what should be left to trained police officers. Apprehending and detaining criminals and suspects is something we should let the police do. Taking the law in our own hands leads to needless deaths.

I hold the same standard if he’s acquitted.

 

[maryjk]

Too many posts but just now on Judge Jeannine, Fox just brought up a point I’ve thought of before, the gun in the holster of Zimmerman is to Z’s back, so how do they both fight for it?? That part doesn’t hold up to well.

As someone who has a CC permit, let me explain how I carry.

I also have a holster that clips inside my pants/skirt, and is a “back” holster. That means I carry it, just behind my hip. I do not carry in the “back.”

First, no one carries back by their spine. Think about it. If you sit down, the weapon would be pressing against your spine. That would be painful. Also, you would have to reach all the way back there if you ever need to draw your weapon.

So, you (the general public, you) carry at your back, but toward the side. And if you are on the ground, the weapon would either push forward, or you would push your body up off of the ground. (It would be like lying on a brick.)

So, if I were to carry and I somehow end up on my back, my gun wouldn’t be under me.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yet, never attacked or assaulted any of the other folks he called in about.

Why do you contend he’s a ‘gunslinger’?

What does that mean to you?

Do you believe carrying a gun where it is legal is any different than any other safety precaution one takes to deal with low probability of occurrence but high negative consequence events?

A gunslinger is somebody who wants blood more so than justice.

Anybody who carries a gun ought to be willing to suffer the consequences if they were in any way negligent. Being negligent should suffice for a conviction of manslaughter.