1582 replies to this topic

[and then]

Leonardo, on 07 April 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

My emphasis.

This is absolutely untrue. The law does not protect someone who agresses against another. It is not, as I have said before, a law to determine who wins a fight.

The only case Zimmerman has, is if his claim of Martin attacking him after Zimmerman left Martin and went to return to his car, is true. If the fight started immediately after the confrontation, which the phone conversation Martin had with his girlfriend seems to suggest, then Zimmerman has no case for self-defence.

Additionally, the plea of self-defence is an affirmative defence by law. This means it is incumbent on the claimant to prove the case for self-defence (that it was necessary). Zimmerman has to have evidence he was, or believed to be, under threat of unlawful force committed against him by Martin. If he cannot provide such evidence then his claim of self-defence has to be decided by any circumstantial evidence in a court of law. This is another area where the police overstepped their authority - because they have no authority to grant anyone involved in a shooting their claim of self-defence.

Not sure how law is handled in your country but in the US it tends to be alive and malleable...prone to changing with precedent and judicial action.

http://www.npr.org/2...und-laws-limits

As for the source, anyone here can tell you that NPR is far from being a conservative mouthpiece.
Z's initial pursuit STOPS being an issue at all if he was telling the truth and was returning to his vehicle when confronted by Trayvon.....and yeah, I know, it's a big IF.  The moment he turned and walked away the confrontation was over, regardless who instigated it. That IS Z's story and it will be up to a judge and or jury to decide.

[Babe Ruth]

Outstanding reasoning Leonardo, regarding the self-defense claim.

We will see what comes out, but I don't need an expert to tell me that the voice screaming for his life was the voice of Trayvon, NOT Zimmerman.

[Myles]

conspiracybeliever, on 07 April 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Why would the Panthers be arrested for something they said and Zimmerman should not be arrested for killing Trayvon? He is a hit man. He isn't a cop. Do you think Trayvon would have reacted the same way, however that was, had Zimmerman been a cop? If he had been wearing a uniform and his gun was visible? The law that even makes anyone question this being alright makes the state of Florida like the wild west. Have there been any riots? An innocent 17 year old was murdered and people are saying it's alright. If the parents and demonstrators and the media weren't making such a big stink about this it would have been brushed under the carpet and it would happen again. It's not alright. Something needs to be done.

After the bolded text above, it is obvious that you are lacking any intelligence in this matter.

[DieChecker]

Babe Ruth, on 06 April 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

If we must categorize, I AM a Trayvon supporter.

Point to anyone that would rather Trayvon was dead. This is a horrible incident, that should not have happened, but the facts and laws allow for Z to do what he did.

Babe Ruth, on 07 April 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

What some folks, maybe yourself, are confusing is the invocation of the SYG statute, which Z has done.

Many lawyers rightly argue that Z's invocation does not meet the standard required by the statute.

The SYG law really does not matter, as lethal force for self defense is a Federal level defense. Unless they can proove Z wanted to shoot Trayvon, there will be no Murder. And unless they can show he was somehow irresponsible with his legally owned gun, then there will be no Manslaughter conviction either.

[DieChecker]

Leonardo, on 07 April 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

The only case Zimmerman has, is if his claim of Martin attacking him after Zimmerman left Martin and went to return to his car, is true. If the fight started immediately after the confrontation, which the phone conversation Martin had with his girlfriend seems to suggest, then Zimmerman has no case for self-defence.

No. The girlfriend's statement says she told him to RUN, and he did. Then it is not clear if Zimmerman came over to Martin, or if Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. So the confrontation in the phone call was not when Zimmerman first went to confront Martin, but was following the running away.

Zimmerman's call to 911 says that he lost Martin and was going back to his car.

Still it could have been either that started the second confrontation. If it was Martin, then his killing was Self Defense, if it was Zimmerman, then it is Manslaughter.

[susieice]

DieChecker, on 08 April 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

No. The girlfriend's statement says she told him to RUN, and he did. Then it is not clear if Zimmerman came over to Martin, or if Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. So the confrontation in the phone call was not when Zimmerman first went to confront Martin, but was following the running away.

Zimmerman's call to 911 says that he lost Martin and was going back to his car.

Still it could have been either that started the second confrontation. If it was Martin, then his killing was Self Defense, if it was Zimmerman, then it is Manslaughter.

No, it doesn't. Zimmerman's last call to 911 is where he makes arrangements to meet the officer he knows to be enroute at the mailboxes then changes his mind and tells them to call him and he'll let them know where he is. He never tells them he's going back to the truck. That call ends at 7:15. The link is in here.

[Leonardo]

DieChecker, on 08 April 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

No. The girlfriend's statement says she told him to RUN, and he did. Then it is not clear if Zimmerman came over to Martin, or if Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. So the confrontation in the phone call was not when Zimmerman first went to confront Martin, but was following the running away.

Zimmerman's call to 911 says that he lost Martin and was going back to his car.

Still it could have been either that started the second confrontation. If it was Martin, then his killing was Self Defense, if it was Zimmerman, then it is Manslaughter.

The testimony from his girlfriend indicates Trayvon did run initially. Then Zimmerman found him again, whereupon Trayvon said [to his girlfriend] he was not going to run. Then there is a confrontation where Martin asks Zimmerman "Why are you following me?". Zimmerman does not reply but asks Martin "What are you doing here?" This is the point the girlfriend states she heard noises like people in a scuffle, and Martin's headset dropped, losing phone contact.

If Martin had decided to use force at this point, he would (were he alive) have a case for that force being justified. It is only if Zimmerman left to return to his car after that brief confrontation, and Martin pursued him, that Zimmerman has a valid case for self-defence.

As Susieice states, the 911 call where Zimmerman says he is going back to his car also includes him changing his mind and continuing his pursuit of Martin on foot.

[Socio]

More facts in this case;

Police Gave George Zimmerman Voice Stress Test

Quote

George Zimmerman's defense team is growing, suggesting that he's planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.

Quote

Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin's death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?

They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.

A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual's voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.

Quote

George Zimmerman's voice stress test came out clean, according to attorney Hal Uhrig.

[joshsluss]

You guys do know the screams are Zimmermans right?

If you've been fooled into thinking it's Trayvons you need to take a tack hammer to your head.

[Leonardo]

Socio, on 08 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

More facts in this case;

Police Gave George Zimmerman Voice Stress Test

Are polygraph tests accurate?

Some info...

Skip to the conclusion...

Quote

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures. We separately present our conclusions about scientific knowledge on the validity of polygraph and other techniques of detecting deception, about policy for employee security screening in the context of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and about the future of detection and deterrence of deception, including a recommendation for research.

The scientific testing and analysis of polygraphs - including VSA - shows the lack of methodology inherent in the use of polygraphs. The 'scoring' of accuracy is entirely based on a perception of that what is being measured is relevant to the investigation (i.e. the subject's responses are due to deception and not any other factor) - which has never been shown to be true.

I would also question the validity of what amounts to a stress test, administered in short order after what was a very stressful situation. Any 'adjustment' made to eliminate the residual stress Zimmerman must have still felt would completely invalidate the results.

Edited by Leonardo, 08 April 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[libstaK]

joshsluss, on 08 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

You guys do know the screams are Zimmermans right?

If you've been fooled into thinking it's Trayvons you need to take a tack hammer to your head.

Until that is presented as a verified fact - no, I for one do not know that.  We have conjecture at this point and the opinion of experts that based on their technology it is not Zimmerman's.  It's a case of watch this space rather than believe one way or the other on this question for me.

[Babe Ruth]

DieChecker

SYG actually DOES matter, despite your protestations.

It was that statute that the State Attorney Office cited in dismissing the manslaughter charges against Z proposed by the investigating officer, remember?

Another question might be 'was Martin entitled to stand his ground in self defense?'.  If he was being followed by Z, what is he entitled to do to defend himself?

[conspiracybeliever]

Is it for real, on 07 April 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

Well let's see...

With Zimmerman a shooting happened, no facts were known and a story was made up to support a completely skewed left wing vision of racism in America. Therefore no one knows just yet if Zimmerman should be arrested. Maybe it was illegal, maybe it wasn't.

With the panthers it's not what they said. It's what they offered. A cash reward for the kidnapping or death of someone. It's called contract killing and its incredibly illegal to even make an offer. So those actions are illegal and proven. It was publicly announced on television. That's why an arrest should be made. What would your reaction be if the KKK put out a bounty for a black guy? I'm sured you'd be foaming at he mouth for an arrest.

Zimmerman wasn't a hit man. That's highly unlikely. But you just make up your own facts.

The law...I bet you'd appreciate a stand your ground law if you were attacked one night by a man and during the struggle you were able to stab the prick right in the heart. Let's say you were lucky and didn't get that banged up. You're a lady with no bruises, and maybe a slightly known contention for men in general, who just killed a man. Would you want the media telling a false version of your story? No. You'd appreciate the fact that the stand your ground law is keeping you out of jail, staying innocent until proven otherwise. In your eyes though, you should be sitting in jail as a convicted cold blooded murderer. Get it now? You complain so much about "the system" yet in this case you want the system to ignore the rules and make an arrest when they don't need to, yet.

If this were the case then yes the SYG law would be good. But in your scenario I am being attacked. I wouldn't go out looking for trouble and try to deal with it like I were a cop. Man or woman trying to attack me I would try to avoid them. If I had the chance I would call the police and get out of there. That's not what Zimmerman did. It's a good law if it's used as it is supposed to be used and not abused as it has been in this case. In this case an innocent person has been murdered and it could have easily been avoided. I find it very strange that people who believe in our system so much wouldn't trust it to do what it is supposed to do and take the law into their own hands or think it is alright that someone else is but then you scream about the violence in black neighborhoods. They don't trust the system either and they have many reasons to not trust the system. What you are describing in these black neighborhoods is people who do not trust the system so have taken the law in their own hands. You don't think this is the beginning of expanding that to other neighborhoods?

And yes the population of Vermont is only 1%. I don't want to sit here and watch riots in other states. That isn't why I am angry over the way this has been handled. I can understand the anger in the black communities. I can understand being targeted by the legal system and this law or any law being twisted to justify what has happened here. And if you look back I was not the one that brought race into this. I don't care what color anyone is. I feel Zimmerman should have been in jail the night of the incident.

[and then]

Babe Ruth, on 08 April 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

DieChecker

SYG actually DOES matter, despite your protestations.

It was that statute that the State Attorney Office cited in dismissing the manslaughter charges against Z proposed by the investigating officer, remember?

Another question might be 'was Martin entitled to stand his ground in self defense?'.  If he was being followed by Z, what is he entitled to do to defend himself?

He was, as long as he felt threatened for his life.  But once he had Z down and was making him scream like a little girl, I think Martin had to know he was no longer in danger.  The law is weakly written and confusing and ultimately will be recrafted or repealed IMO.  
The Grand Jury is impaneled in 2 days.  I wonder if they will make evidence for their decision available to the public?  At this point it might be considered inflammatory not to do so.

[Babe Ruth]

Screaming like a little girl, or screaming like a little boy?

For a disinterested observer, it sounds like your mind is fairly well made up already?