Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Malor wrote:

Techdirt's comments are usually very good, and they allow anonymous posters.

Challenge Accepted.

The biggest difference I see is between moderated and unmoderated. Those wide-audience sites I mentioned are, for all intents and purposes, unmoderated. Most employ the 'thumbs up/thumbs down' system that lets users 'bury' other users.

Larry C, I get what you are saying. I know there are good people in the world, and especially here ... (reason I'm here), but allowing anonymity without moderation allows people to be vitriolic, and what's depressing is that it reveals that these people are out there, en masse.

But yeah, this country is depressing and sad in so many ways. Just saw a story today where Rick Santorum was at a gun range doing some target practice and I guess some of his supporters were there. One of the people in the crowd shouted out "pretend it's Obama!". I guess I'm just sickened by the fact that racism is still so alive, I guess I wanted to believe that we were advancing.

Damned thugs.

IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-KdDwqH0BXGY/T20sp9CIYTI/AAAAAAAAAWM/_nrBx3LQD_4/s800/mkp.jpg)

They always get away.

1Dgaf wrote:

lots stuff

I posted the Geraldo stuff because its so moronic and disgusting of him in this situation to try and assign even 0.0000001% of the blame to Trayvon because he had a hoodie on.

Obviously people stereo type other people by many different factors. If I see man with a good physique, wearing bright tight spandex, dancing like hes having a seizure while blowing a whistle. AND on a float. I might assume theres a parade going on and maybe some other things also. This is human.

Apparently tho it has gotten to the point in Florida where if enough of those assuming stereotypes add up you get shot. Also its partly your fault as the victim that other people are stereotyping you.

It was nice to see it pop up in my twitter later that Geraldos son who he used as an example, cause you know his son is of color so its 'ok' for him to be making these comments, was ashamed.

Maq wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

This whole situation has the potential to blow up really bad. Marches were held today for Trayvon in Miami, and NYC, and it's possible calls for justice will spread, and if things don't play out in a certain way -- it could lead to a serious situation.

London burned last summer lit by a smaller match than this.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Edwin wrote:
Maq wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

This whole situation has the potential to blow up really bad. Marches were held today for Trayvon in Miami, and NYC, and it's possible calls for justice will spread, and if things don't play out in a certain way -- it could lead to a serious situation.

London burned last summer lit by a smaller match than this.

It wouldn't be the first time.

There's a lot of anger and frustration, yeah. Although, on the upside, I don't think the criminal justice system and minority communities can possibly have less trust/lower opinions of one another at this point.

I know I'm 9 pages in, so forgive, please:

Here is the only thing that went totally wrong, in my opinion:

Law enforcement - for whatever reason - did an absolutely unforgivable "investigation".

People shoot each other all the time, sometimes for good reasons, mostly for bad reasons. That is just part of life, and while it's "wrong" it's not abnormal. Racist or not, even, that stuff happens. But these cops did a terrible, terrible investigation, and now everything is totally FUBAR.

In Colorado you also have no duty to retreat, and we have a home defense law that is locally called "Make My Day". If you shoot somebody in your home, you have to meet 3 specific criteria.

Out in public, it's a bit different. Basically, you are allowed to use deadly force if you are in legitimate fear for your life, or if you are in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury" (in this state usually defined as losing organ use, limbs, serious head trauma, etc).

So - a 17 year old walking toward you because you're a racist asshole, maybe getting in your face a bit because he's sick of being treated poorly? No way can you shoot that dude. Even if he attacks you, it's still not a case for lethal violence.

Now, if a 17 year old under the same circumstances tackles you, and is holding you down trying to choke you? Sure, that's lethal force. If you managed to get your gun out of the holster and shoot him, you'd probably be cleared, and no charges would be filed.

But the problem is that these cops didn't do a correct investigation, so we'll never know what actually happened. No photographs of injuries (that we know of, anyway), no neighborhood canvass, etc.

Colorado has a few cases a year where somebody shoots somebody in self defense. Most of the time, people are cleared of any wrongdoing. But that's only after a long, intense period of investigation where the shooter is closely scrutinized for their actions and motivations. I personally met a woman who shot her husband to death and was eventually cleared of wrongdoing under similar laws in which the prosecution was able to discern a pattern of violent abuse that resulted in him getting shot in the throat.

In the end, it sounds like there was a racially motivated guy with an incredibly poor understanding of the law and a lot of hatred, and cops who were unable or unwilling to do their due diligence in conducting a thorough investigation. The tragedy is now so complex that it's crazy - now every good cop has that much more bulls*** to deal with from people who don't trust them, every minority in Florida has that much more worry about their safety, and controlling idiots like Jesse Jackson get the press time that they want so very much.

Sigh. Sometimes I feel like it's every American's duty to marry and have kids with somebody of a different skin color so that in a couple hundred years we have to make up a different reason to hate each other, at least.

Zimmerman has an attorney now, and that attorney says Stand Your Ground does not apply in this case.

Paleocon wrote:

But to me equally clear is the need for a full on investigation of the homeowners' association, city government, and the police force. How in Moses' butthole was Zimmerman allowed to patrol the neighborhood with a gun? Who knew about it? What other incidents constituted red flags that should have prompted corrective action before this tragedy struck?

What makes you think they could have stopped him? Were his actions before this illegal?

Wow, did that dude ever hire a bad attorney. The lawyer might be right, but just giving away his client's main line of defense? Whoah. Terrible stuff.

Malor wrote:

Wow, did that dude ever hire a bad attorney. The lawyer might be right, but just giving away his client's main line of defense? Whoah. Terrible stuff.

Reminds me of Sandusky's attorney, putting him on national TV, and not filtering Sandusky's incriminating responses.

InspectorFowler wrote:

Out in public, it's a bit different. Basically, you are allowed to use deadly force if you are in legitimate fear for your life, or if you are in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury" (in this state usually defined as losing organ use, limbs, serious head trauma, etc).

How do you know if you're at risk of getting serious head trauma?

Funkenpants wrote:
InspectorFowler wrote:

Out in public, it's a bit different. Basically, you are allowed to use deadly force if you are in legitimate fear for your life, or if you are in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury" (in this state usually defined as losing organ use, limbs, serious head trauma, etc).

How do you know if you're at risk of getting serious head trauma?

The other guy's swinging a bat at your head.

Stengah wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
InspectorFowler wrote:

Out in public, it's a bit different. Basically, you are allowed to use deadly force if you are in legitimate fear for your life, or if you are in imminent danger of "serious bodily injury" (in this state usually defined as losing organ use, limbs, serious head trauma, etc).

How do you know if you're at risk of getting serious head trauma?

The other guy's swinging a bat at your head.

Don't need a bat. Knock me down, kick me in the head. I get that the state doesn't want a fist fight among young bucks in a bar turn into a gunfight, but it's hard to know when a mugging might go too far. And if I'm a woman, do I need to let a man beat me during a mugging? I have the feeling surrounding circumstances count for a lot in an individual case.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

But to me equally clear is the need for a full on investigation of the homeowners' association, city government, and the police force. How in Moses' butthole was Zimmerman allowed to patrol the neighborhood with a gun? Who knew about it? What other incidents constituted red flags that should have prompted corrective action before this tragedy struck?

What makes you think they could have stopped him? Were his actions before this illegal?

They allowed him to act on their behalf in an official capacity. It was precisely that capacity that emboldened him to do what he did. Had they not and he, instead, drove around the neighborhood as Fat Batman with a gun anyway, my guess is that there are any number of stalking laws that one could cite that could have stopped him.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

What makes you think they could have stopped him? Were his actions before this illegal?

Zimmerman was arrested seven years ago for resisting an officer with violence and battery on a law enforcement official. That alone should have disqualified him from 1) even being considered by the HOA to run the Neighborhood Watch, and 2) made it next to impossible for him to get a firearm, let alone a concealed carry permit for it.

I gathered that his position as Neighborhood Watch is sort of self-appointed and non-official. Just a rumor?

There have been posts in the thread that the actual neighborhood watch that Zimm was not a member.

OG, I don't know if he had a concealed carry permit or not, but someone said that his battery conviction was only as a misdemeanor for some reason, not a felony.

To clarify on SBI:

"Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.

When somebody is injured, a doctor usually defines that for us. We have the victim sign release forms saying it's okay for the doctor to talk to us, and the doctor gives us his medical opinion on the seriousness of injuries.

In terms of how you "know" you're going to get it, sometimes you don't. We had a guy who got sucker punched and when he fell, he hit his head and died. The attacker got convicted (note that "we" means "my city" and not "the agency I work for").

In general, your actions will be defined by how a reasonable person in your circumstances defined their potential for being injured. So you against 3 aggressors? Pretty easy to say you were in reasonable fear for your life. You against a single aggressor of roughly the same size, with no other information? Much harder. An aggressor with virtually any "deadly weapon"? Absolutely you may be in reasonable fear for your life.

(e) "Deadly weapon" means any of the following which in the manner it is used or intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury:

(I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded;

(II) A knife;

(III) A bludgeon; or

(IV) Any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate.

That last catch all allows vehicles, rocks, etc to count, depending on their use.

This is why it's so important that people educate themselves THOROUGHLY before they ever choose to carry a gun. You need to have a good interpretation of what deadly force is, what you can reasonably perceive as a deadly threat, when you are allowed to use deadly force, etc. For example, in some states you are obligated to retreat from an attacker before you can defend yourself. You really need to know that before you decide to start carrying a gun.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

There have been posts in the thread that the actual neighborhood watch that Zimm was not a member.

OG, I don't know if he had a concealed carry permit or not, but someone said that his battery conviction was only as a misdemeanor for some reason, not a felony.

I was under the impression that Zimmerman was the only person who volunteered for the Neighborhood Watch, ergo he put himself "in charge" of it.

If he didn't have a concealed carry permit, he should have been arrested on the spot for having a gun.

Either way, the HOA should have rejected him given his arrest record if only to avoid the legal liability they are now facing.

Zimmerman does have a CW permit.

He was not on any official neighborhood watch, IIRC, he was self appointed, and a cop-wannabe.

edit: ok, I found this article, and understand my confusion about GZ's role with the Neighborhood Watch.

1. He was selected by his neighbors as their NW "coordinator", back in September.

2. however, they were not registered with the national NW organization, though technically that is not required. So basically, this was a self-formed 'watch' by the neighborhood, and was not part of the Sherriff's Dept watch, or any other official organization.

Further:

Sanford and the [neighboring] Volusia County Sheriff's Office have another volunteer program called Citizens on Patrol. In Volusia, those volunteers ride two to a Sheriff's Office-issued car. They undergo background and driver checks, an hourlong interview and 60 hours of training.

I live in Volusia County, and I see these volunteer patrol cars all the time. GZ was not part of this, and not trained. By carrying a gun, he was violating the core principles of the NW, and was supposed to have merely called law enforcement and let them take it from there.

edit 2:

Either way, the HOA should have rejected him given his arrest record if only to avoid the legal liability they are now facing.

It's my understanding that GZ's record was 'clean', because he agreed to attend some class or something that allowed him to keep his record clean, and thus this offense may not have shown publicly. I believe this kerfuffle with the cops was scrubbed, as if it never happened (as far as the general public is concerned).

excellent piece by a retired federal judge. link

Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous? Yes, but according to CNN: "Police say they have not charged Zimmerman because they have no evidence to contradict his story that he shot in self-defense." Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie? Isn't his credibility an issue? Aren't there surrounding circumstances that place the claim of self-defense in dispute? What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.

What is also indisputable is that a) Trayvon Martin was unarmed, and b) he was half the size of Zimmerman. No f'ing way do I believe that deadly force was required, even if Trayvon was punching him as GZ claims.

Is GZ seriously going to claim that his life was in jeopardy from an unarmed skinny kid? And the cops just said "meh, yeah, i can see that, be on your way ol' chap" .. Didn't even take him in for questioning.

Oh, this is rich.

Frank Taaffe, the new defender of George Zimmerman, just can't help trying to make Trayvon Martin out to be the villain here.

During an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on AC360, Taaffe said that a problem could have been avoided if Martin had been "up front and truthful" with Zimmerman.

This is absurd. I, nor any other person walking down a street in America, has an obligation to answer any question posed by some random stranger. You don't even have to answer questions posed by the police except to identify who you are (by simply stating your name) unless you are under arrest.

And for good measure, Digby highlights a great question by Markos:

"Notice that conservatives aren't arguing that Trayvon should've been packing? I wonder why..."

That's a very good question indeed.

And the hits just keep on coming...

On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

Thank God we have George Zimmerman protecting America from the onslaught of those notorious 7-9 year old black children who have been terrorizing the great Florida area for years.

Jeff-66 wrote:

What is also indisputable is that a) Trayvon Martin was unarmed, and b) he was half the size of Zimmerman. No f'ing way do I believe that deadly force was required, even if Trayvon was punching him as GZ claims.

Is GZ seriously going to claim that his life was in jeopardy from an unarmed skinny kid? And the cops just said "meh, yeah, i can see that, be on your way ol' chap" .. Didn't even take him in for questioning.

As unpopular as this is going to sound, I don't think those two things necessarily disqualify a claim of self defense. I regularly work out with folks who are 140 pounds who I'm confident could kick my ass and I guarantee I'm at least 5 times that baddass that mall ninja George Zimmerman will be on his best day.

That said, I still have to say that 100% of the blame here goes to Zimmerman and the folks who actually thought it was a good idea to give the responsibility of patrolling their neighborhood to a girlfriend beating, cop assaulting, deadbeat mall ninja with a gun and "fed up" issues.

A little over 20 years ago, I was sitting in a car with my girlfriend in a parking lot having a pretty serious discussion about where the whole relationship was going. I didn't notice when a pickup truck full of yahoos pulled up behind us. The folks in the back got out and approached our car from both sides and I smelled trouble.

I told the girlfriend to start the car and get the hell out of there. She did and the folks ran back to their pickup and gave chase. It was late and there was practically nothing around. We weren't exactly sure where everything was (unfamiliar town) and the last thing I wanted to do was head back to the hotel where we were staying for fear that they would know where we'd be bedding down for the night.

This continued at fairly high speed for about 3 miles before we noticed the well lit parking lot of a local community college. I directed her to drive there, which she did. They continued the chase until we managed to find a local police car parked in the lot and pulled up next to it. After that, the pickup sped off at speed.

When I think of what might have been going through Trayvon's mind, I think back to that night. Some crazy stalker is driving his car behind you. You don't want him to know where you live, so you want to lose the tail before you get home. You aren't in a car so you can't just speed off. He gets out of his car to pursue you on foot and he's twice your size. He doesn't identify himself as law enforcement. For all you know, he could be a sexual predator. You verbally warn him to stop following you and he barks something back about what you might be doing in the neighborhood. Adrenaline is pumping through your 17 year old body as he gets inside your fight/flight distance....

And according to the man that shot you dead, you attacked him and he defended himself.

CheezePavillion, I know folks have mentioned it before, but your block-linking practice hinders readability rather than draw attention to the entire passage, which I think you've said is your intent.

I do web stuff for a living, but you're usually open to evidence, so here's an excerpt from a government set of usability guidelines (warning, PDF).

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines wrote:

Guideline: Make text links long enough to be understood, but short enough to minimize wrapping.

Comments: A single word text link may not give enough information about the link’s destination. A link that is several words may be difficult to read quickly, particularly if it wraps to another line. Generally, it is best if text links do not extend more than one line. However, one study found that when users scan prose text, links of nine to ten words elicit better performance than shorter or longer links.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It seems like there's an unconscious double standard at work in this case, where the bar for being reasonably afraid of black people is lower than being afraid of other people, and the bar for a black person being reasonably afraid of other people is higher. Did anyone care about Trayvon's right to Stand HIS Ground?

I hadn't seen the linked article before but yeah, I agree.

LouZiffer (page 2) wrote:

Trayvon had the right to stand his ground and defend himself from his pursuer, who then shot him.

By refusing to back off as instructed by the dispatcher, Zimmerman became the instigator. His civic duty ended when he made the report but he chose to take it further. Anything that happened past that point was his responsibility. He should own up to it.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

CheezePavillion, I know folks have mentioned it before, but your block-linking practice hinders readability rather than draw attention to the entire passage, which I think you've said is your intent.

I do web stuff for a living, but you're usually open to evidence, so here's an excerpt from a government set of usability guidelines (warning, PDF).

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines wrote:

Guideline: Make text links long enough to be understood, but short enough to minimize wrapping.

Comments: A single word text link may not give enough information about the link’s destination. A link that is several words may be difficult to read quickly, particularly if it wraps to another line. Generally, it is best if text links do not extend more than one line. However, one study found that when users scan prose text, links of nine to ten words elicit better performance than shorter or longer links.

That actually hinders readability for people, huh? It increases readability for me.

Wait, does it show up as just red to you, or red and underlined? Because it only shows up as red to me until I move the mouse pointer over it. Or is it the red that makes it more difficult to read? In either case, I guess the most practical solution is conformity to the majority.

Haven't seen this linked yet, and I think it brings up an important angle that builds on what Paleocon is talking about (link):

But as Jeff Chase, a recent University of Connecticut law grad, pointed out to me over email, you can flip the premise and see Martin, not Zimmerman, as the person who was acting in self-defense. Jeff writes: “Trayvon saw someone following him, felt threatened, retreated, was still followed, and then was approached by an armed man who had 100 lbs on him. … Because Zimmerman was acting as an aggressor, Trayvon had the right to defend himself by punching, kicking, tackling, etc. Because Zimmerman was acting as the aggressor, his actions cannot be considered self-defense: you can't initiate and then claim self-defense. The evidence for initiation is there on the 911 tape. ... Why is it that a black man cannot be afraid of a white man who follows and approaches him on a street at night?

It seems like there's an unconscious double standard at work in this case, where the bar for being reasonably afraid of black people is lower than being afraid of other people, and the bar for a black person being reasonably afraid of other people is higher. Did anyone care about Trayvon's right to Stand HIS Ground?

It also bring up an issue with a Stand Your Ground law where it's not clear to everyone involved who has the greater duty to retreat: if two people become reasonably afraid of each other, is the difference between the victim and the aggressor just the person who is quicker on the draw like this is the old west, and gets to tell their story while the dead person cannot? Even two decent people could wind up involved in a tragedy.