The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[Neil]

Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.

Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:

A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.

B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.

What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.

Pretty much my take on it as well.

Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

Wouldn't he get himself into some pretter serious trouble just for carrying a handgun around, especially a loaded one?

[garbon]

People marching through the city broke windows, spray painted cars and buildings and attempted to start fires, according to The Oakland Tribune.

Pfft, Oakland.

From what I recall though, recognizing that it wouldn't be as impactful to riot in Oakland, they also took the BART to light trashcans on fire in downtown SF.

[Barrister]

Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.

Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:

A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.

B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.

What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.

Pretty much my take on it as well.

Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

Wouldn't he get himself into some pretter serious trouble just for carrying a handgun around, especially a loaded one?

Yes, but that's a whole different issue.  You can also prevent things like this from happening if you don't allow people to carry concealed firearms with them...

[Neil]

Yes, but that's a whole different issue.  You can also prevent things like this from happening if you don't allow people to carry concealed firearms with them...

Yeah, it's not a bad idea preventing people from going hunting for humans.  But I suppose that's their system.

[DGuller]

if derspiesses weren't allowed to conceal carry back in the day, we would all be speaking Canadian today. 

[MadImmortalMan]

You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

[DGuller]

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset?  You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.

[Malthus]

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset?  You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.

It doesn't mean you have to literally be beaten to within an inch of your life. More like the court takes into account the circumstances.

Crazy person comming at you with machete: reasonable fear of death, etc.

Skinny kid comming at you with skittles: rather less obvious. 

[Barrister]

You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida.  If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away.  Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.

As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)?  If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.

[Berkut]

Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.

Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:

A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.

B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.

What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.

Pretty much my take on it as well.

Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

I am talking more generally. We have a justice system where the ideal is that we would rather set ten guilty men free than imprison one innocent man.

You can argue that the laws in this case were not very "just" in a societal sense of course, and I would be right there with you, but the system in this case worked as intended. The justice system, that is.

The result in particular may not feel all that just, but in general, this is how it ought to work.

[Barrister]

Not necessarily.  You just have to have a system where the right to self-defence is more narrowed.

If this had happened in, oh, say, Canada, even if you accept Zimmerman's version of events he probably would not have been justified in using his firearm.  You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

Doesn't that make the gun more of a liability than an asset?  You can't legally shoot someone until you're at a point where you can be easily disarmed, and have your weapon turned against you.

To be fair you don't have to wait until that point - you only have to be fearful of death or GBH, not actually suffering from it.

As well I should note the cases also say that you aren't expected to make really careful, well-reasoned judgments in split second situations.  But still - hard to see how ZImmerman would have a reasonable fear of death in this case.

[MadImmortalMan]

As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)?  If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.

Bashing his head on the concrete.

[Malthus]

You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida.  If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away.  Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.

As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)?  If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.

I guess the issue is when the determination to run must be made.

My understanding is that Z. claimed the kid tried to beat his head against the pavement.

What if you get into a fight that starts with a couple of shoves, but ends with one guy trying to beat the other's brains out? It could be that the guy could have run earlier on, at the shoving stage (or before), but can't when shit got serious.

That's part of what is so bizzare about this case - while we can't know beyond a reasonable doubt what happened when those two tangled, we do know beyond a doubt that Zimmerman caused the whole confrontation by playing amateur cop. To my mind, there ought to be some sort of liability for that, if only for criminal dumbassness. 

[Syt]

You can't use a handgun to defend yourself from a physical confrontation, you can only use it if you fear from suffering 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

What's the difference? Any time I'm in a physical confrontation, I fear 'death or grevious bodily harm'.

It comes back to the "stand your ground" law in Florida.  If you're in a physical confrontation you have options - you can run away.  Flipping to the self-defence section of the Code I'm reminded there's an additional requirement - in order to use 'deadly force' has to not on be fearful of death or grevious bodily harm, but there has to be no other means to prevent death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others.

As well (and I haven't followed this case that closely), but what exactly did Zimmerman say Martin was doing to him (though I recognize he didn't testify)?  If he just got 'in his space', maybe shoved him a couple times, that's not a fear or GBH or death.

The German term would be Notwehrüberschreitung. 

[DGuller]

Gesundheit.