Stand Your Ground: George Zimmerman Charged

Worst slash fic ever.

 

Stealing a car initiates a confrontation.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute then go away.

 

I'm not sure where a seemingly intentionally obtuse hypothesis that's contrived mostly to confuse is all that constructive either.

 

Repo man's always intense.

 

What's contrived is chico's original proposition. When people start making up their own standards in their mind driven by emotion to reach the desired result instead of applying the actual law, that's how they can reach results like Joe Horn not being charged for shooting the two burglars in Texas. If you think SYG laws encourage violence, try having a society where it is open season on any person who "confronts" another while carrying a weapon.

 

But nobody is suggesting that.

Stealing a car is initiating a confrontation - a physical confrontation. The thief is physically attacking someone's property. This is distinct from a verbal confrontation, depending on exactly what is said.

You're making up a bunch of scenarios in which initiating a confrontation is doing any action which provokes the other person into violence. The problem here is in the definition of what it means to "initiate a confrontation." Does verbally provoking someone count? I don't think any of us would expect it to count, unless that verbal provocation involved threats of physical harm which the recipient might reasonably interpret to mean he's in imminent danger and must defend himself.

The Stand Your Ground law pretty clearly states that if you feel threatened, you don't have to retreat. Trayvon was not obligated to retreat. He stood his ground.

 

So does following someone count as initiating a confrontation? Are you within your rights to attack someone if you feel threatened by them walking behind you?

 

I just noticed that the City of Sanford has taken down the police report and 911 tapes at the request of the special Prosecutor. I'm guessing she doesn't want any amateur sleuths on the jury asking questions.

 

I think you're being a taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad bit disingenuous by a gun totin' neighborhood watch guy marking you as suspect as merely "walking behind you".

Plus, regardless of who initiated the confrontation and how, bare knuckled fighting doesn't necessarily lead to use of a deadly weapon.

 

Did he know that Zimmerman was a "gun totin' neighborhood watch guy"? How could he? All he saw was a guy in his car watching him and talking on the phone, then that guy got out of his car and followed him. Does that constitute initiating a confrontation? Are you within your rights to attack someone who watches and follows you while talking on their phone? It's a simple question really.

 

We don't know what happened between the 911 call and the confrontation that led to the gun going off. I don't understand why you're so willing to fill in the blank there.

Anyway, we don't know what Trayvon knew. But what we do know is that Zimmerman *was* actively tracking him - I don't think that's in dispute. So it's more than a little intellectually dishonest to ask a hypothesis about someone who's merely walking behind you.

 

What blank am i filling in, i was asking a direct question.

How can you tell the difference between someone who is walking behind you and someone who is "actively tracking" you?

 

If we are to believe the veracity of Trayvon Martin's phone conversation with his girlfriend, he was aware that he was being stalked (and he was right!). I mean, you're willing to write your own fan-fic for what happened between the initial 911 call and the gun going off, but you're going to ignore that piece of evidence?

 

What a sad country we live in Zimmerman will probably get a trial faster than the Ft. Hood Massacre terrorist

 

He was right. But how did he know he was right?

Fan fic? I'm going by the statements of TM's girlfriend and Zimmerman. Both agree that TM initiated verbal contact. Zimmerman claims that TM attacked him, my question is, assuming Z's version is true, was TM within his rights to do so. Just answer the question, please.

 

Yeah, it's not the same, as I said, and the timing and many other aspects are very, VERY different but the REASONS for arriving at the decision are not dissimilar in that they're both based on a belief, (mistaken or otherwise), that, unless you strike first you risk losing a conflict.

Like a Welsh rugby coach said once, (about playing the Welsh in Paris IIRC), it's sometimes important to 'get your retaliations in first'

Yes, and also that what might seem a reason to start a physical confrontation to one person wouldn't be to another. Even the example of someone threatening physical violence doesn't necessarily mean the other person has to react first.

In the past, (in my youth I hasten to add), I've had people threaten me and I've usually said, 'Go on then' and just looked at them. It seems to be quite unnerving as nobody has ever done anything.

To be fair it's a pretty small sample though, so...

Exactly!!!

Of course, what we DON'T know is whether maybe Zimmerman could argue he had reason to think the same thus the point at issue.

The blank that Zimmerman was simply following him. We don't KNOW that as I mentioned before.

 

OK, I will. After reading your sick rape/murder fantasy, I recommend that you go see a psychiatrist.

 

The original comment that prompted this entire line of discussion did exactly that (which sentiment has been voiced by more than one person in this thread, by the way) by proposing that Zimmerman had no right to self defense at the moment he "confronted" Trayvon while carrying a gun.

Is it an attack on property or a physical attack on a person?

Emphasis added- finally we're getting somewhere. At what point does the "confrontation" become legal provocation of the scuffle? The comment under discussion is that it happens as soon as Zimmerman approaches Trayvon. According to the girlfriend, however, there wasn't a verbal threat of physical harm- Zimmerman asked Trayvon "What are you doing here?" So, provocation cannot be a strict liability type standard where the only necessary factors are (1) whether you are carrying a gun or not (now we very well could be implicating constitutional questions if we made that the rule) and (2) whether you were the person who walked up to the other person or vice versa.

As has been stated many times- this isn't the issue. Trayvon is not the person on trial. Whether Trayvon might have been able to establish a claim of self defense himself if he had survived and was charged doesn't answer the question of whether Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. It is conceivable that both individuals in a fight could legally show self defense and be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing. Moreover, even if Zimmerman was the one who provoked the fight, it is still possible depending on the facts that he is legally entitled to use deadly force against Trayvon.

All the attempts to "simplify" the factual disputes and legal issues by pinning Zimmerman's guilt on the moment he followed Trayvon or the moment he got out of his car not only isn't legally correct, but even if we made it the law it would be bad public policy, it would possibly be unconstitutional, and just like SYG it would be a rule used by defendants in other violent crime situations.

 

It's entirely plausible that TM turned around and said something to the effect of: "Why the ******** are you following me?"

At which point, it also entirely plausible that Zimmerman got in his face and said something like "I want to know what you are doing here!", followed by Martin saying "None of your business, leave me alone" -- and then Zimmerman says "It is my business and you're going to tell me".

Then TM shoves him back and says "Get out of my face" and then Zimmerman grabs him and tries to put him under "citizen's arrest" - and then a scuffle ensues and because Zimmerman is a loser ********face and realizes that this "I'm sort of a cop and I'm going to arrest this punk" routine is a lot harder than it looks on TV, he pulls out his gun and goes all TJ Hooker.

At which point his sweaty, chubby fingers grasp the trigger a little too tightly and BLAM!

And then Zimmerman thinks: Uh-oh. This shit is REAL. I just blew away a teenager for walking through his neighborhood with Skittles and Ice Tea because I have no self esteem, and my self-imposed method for getting my manhood back is to carry a gun and act like I'm the cops. I need to come up with a story -- quick -- about how this skinny kid was beating me within an inch of my life, and you know, I just had to blow him away to save myself -- because he attacked me for no reason. It was all his fault. It's not my fault -- I was defending myself. I have the right to defend myself.

And then I'll get to go on Piers Morgan's show and maybe hook up with Casey Anthony, 'cause she is so hot, and we won't even have to worry about kids and whatever, because, you know...she ain't too good with that shit.

 

One change - he's got more svelte shootin' fingers now that he's 185 pounds and not the fat, dumb pantload from his old pictures. But the rest of your description seems quite plausible.

 

sorry double post

 

Ok, you had me up until this point as painting a reasonable theory of a normal confrontation. This "citizens arrest" seems to be stretching it a bit based on some charicature you seem to have drawn in you head about zimmerman, which I would need a lot more evidence about him than I have seen to date to accept as plausible.

Well this doesn't make sense to me, If he really wanted to make a "citizens arrest", and he knew he was armed, wouldn't it make sense to draw the weapon before any physical confrontation. For all he knew Martin also had a weapon, so why would he wait to draw his if he was going to initiate the confrontation in order to make an "arrest"?

OK, I could accept the grasp the trigger too tight if the story was that there was no physical altercation at all. If he just pulled his weapon and said "you are under citizens arrest, so raise your hands" and then Martin maybe makes a motion that makes him nervous and he shoots.

Unfortunately there is way to much evidence that there was a close physical stuggle, and at the minimum Zimmerman had a bloody nose. I think zimmerman knew full well what he was doing when he pulled the trigger, and it was no accident.

And if in fact he told the police that he attacked him for "no reason" then I think Zimmerman will be in serious trouble. His entire case comes down to his credibility, and if his intial story to the police is inconsistent with reliable physical evidence or is unrealististic then he will easily be found guilty.

Granted we have not heard all of the evidence, but so far I have not heard anyone say that zimmerman's story was either unrealistic or deeply inconsistent with other strong evidence.

You may be correct that he made his story up, but it would be amazing that if he did that, that he was actually lucky enough that the story he made up fits close enough with the other evidence that he can't be proven a liar.

 

You're refusing to acknowledge what other people have been saying. We don't know what happened between the 911 call and the actual shooting. I don't think anyone is saying that simply by following Trayvon and getting out of his vehicle, Zimmerman was initiating a physical confrontation. What people are saying is that the evidence clearly indicates that Trayvon was minding his own business, while Zimmerman was the one taking an inappropriate and unnecessary interest in the other party. Therefore it's quite possible that Zimmerman initiated the contact and the confrontation -- and there is any number of ways he could have done that.

According to Stand Your Ground, if you are walking down the street and a strange person is pursuing you, and you feel threatened, you are not required to retreat. You are entirely justified in using force against that person. If I'm not mistaken, the law states that you only have to feel threatened -- you don't actually have to be attacked (or have your property attacked). If the person who was threatening you fights back and wins, ultimately killing you, can he then claim self defense?

But we don't know how the confrontation actually started.