Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

It's a shame that the police station video elicited a flood of comments regarding the alleged assault and how there was no way Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea, but when confronted with new evidence the thread is silent.
Some went so far as to suspect the cops had completely falsified the on-scene report.
Is anyone willing to concede that in light of this new evidence the police station video was misleading, and that Zimmerman was assaulted and may have had reasonable cause to fear for death or immediate serious injury?

Trophy Husband wrote:

It's a shame that the police station video elicited a flood of comments regarding the alleged assault and how there was no way Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea, but when confronted with new evidence the thread is silent.
Some went so far as to suspect the cops had completely falsified the on-scene report.
Is anyone willing to concede that in light of this new evidence the police station video was misleading, and that Zimmerman was assaulted and may have had reasonable cause to fear for death or immediate serious injury?

I think you'll find that there were many of us who said something along the lines of "we just don't know, but based on what we've seen so far...."

I'm absolutely willing to concede that. Have been from the beginning. However, I'm still at a place of "I don't know, but based on what we've seen so far...."

Trophy Husband wrote:

It's a shame that the police station video elicited a flood of comments regarding the alleged assault and how there was no way Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea, but when confronted with new evidence the thread is silent.
Some went so far as to suspect the cops had completely falsified the on-scene report.
Is anyone willing to concede that in light of this new evidence the police station video was misleading, and that Zimmerman was assaulted and may have had reasonable cause to fear for death or immediate serious injury?

I'll concede it's possible. As possible as a teenager with a gun pointed at him defending himself by punching his attacker in the face.

Assuming the photo is legitimate (is from the night of the shooting, and undoctored), I'd agree that it seems likely that Trayvon Martin did land at least one good punch. I'd also agree that the police station video is misleading, insofar as it showed no evidence of injury.

Whether this supports a self-defense plea for a confrontation that (even in Zimmerman's telling) was avoidable had Zimmerman not chosen repeatedly to pursue an escalatory path? Not sold on that.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Assuming the photo is legitimate (is from the night of the shooting, and undoctored), I'd agree that it seems likely that Trayvon Martin did land at least one good punch. I'd also agree that the police station video is misleading, insofar as it showed no evidence of injury.

Whether this supports a self-defense plea for a confrontation that (even in Zimmerman's telling) was avoidable had Zimmerman not chosen repeatedly to pursue an escalatory path? Not sold on that.

THIS. All this proves (assuming it's legit) is an altercation. It does not prove who assaulted whom AT ALL.

Fist fights don't prove reasonably fear of death either. The guy with the gun still has no reason to fear death from the guy with the skittles.

Totally agree about the thread being silent, Trophy. I was wondering about that but didn't want to step into the middle of the other argument to point it out. Thanks for jumping in.

When you are carrying a lethal weapon, the onus is on you to avoid conflict because any conflict, no matter how trivial, is potentially life threatening. This is especially so because of the fact that you are not a member of law enforcement and you have been advised by law enforcement not to pursue.

Nothing about that has changed.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Totally agree about the thread being silent, Trophy. I was wondering about that but didn't want to step into the middle of the other argument to point it out. Thanks for jumping in.

I was kind of ignoring the thread while the racial disparities in the US justice system conversation (which we've had before - in this thread even) sorted itself out, and totally skimmed past Nomad's post.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Assuming the photo is legitimate (is from the night of the shooting, and undoctored), I'd agree that it seems likely that Trayvon Martin did land at least one good punch. I'd also agree that the police station video is misleading, insofar as it showed no evidence of injury.

Whether this supports a self-defense plea for a confrontation that (even in Zimmerman's telling) was avoidable had Zimmerman not chosen repeatedly to pursue an escalatory path? Not sold on that.

THIS. All this proves (assuming it's legit) is an altercation. It does not prove who assaulted whom AT ALL.

Fist fights don't prove reasonably fear of death either. The guy with the gun still has no reason to fear death from the guy with the skittles.

Ditto.

This at least proves (IMO) that the police didn't falsify the report (a claim I didn't make anyway). And one good punch to the nose (which could cause almost all the damage in that photo) does not prove that "Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea" in the context of wielding a deadly weapon in self-defense.

I was one of those who said that the photos provided in the past did not gel with the claims of the kind of damage that Zimmerman took. This photo much more closely matches what the reports indicated, so I obviously wouldn't make that particular claim now.

Farscry wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Assuming the photo is legitimate (is from the night of the shooting, and undoctored), I'd agree that it seems likely that Trayvon Martin did land at least one good punch. I'd also agree that the police station video is misleading, insofar as it showed no evidence of injury.

Whether this supports a self-defense plea for a confrontation that (even in Zimmerman's telling) was avoidable had Zimmerman not chosen repeatedly to pursue an escalatory path? Not sold on that.

THIS. All this proves (assuming it's legit) is an altercation. It does not prove who assaulted whom AT ALL.

Fist fights don't prove reasonably fear of death either. The guy with the gun still has no reason to fear death from the guy with the skittles.

Ditto.

This at least proves (IMO) that the police didn't falsify the report (a claim I didn't make anyway). And one good punch to the nose (which could cause almost all the damage in that photo) does not prove that "Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea" in the context of wielding a deadly weapon in self-defense.

I was one of those who said that the photos provided in the past did not gel with the claims of the kind of damage that Zimmerman took. This photo much more closely matches what the reports indicated, so I obviously wouldn't make that particular claim now.

I think it's weird for this image to just surface now, personally. But agreed, if it's real it makes stories add up a little more than they did before.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Assuming the photo is legitimate (is from the night of the shooting, and undoctored), I'd agree that it seems likely that Trayvon Martin did land at least one good punch. I'd also agree that the police station video is misleading, insofar as it showed no evidence of injury.

Whether this supports a self-defense plea for a confrontation that (even in Zimmerman's telling) was avoidable had Zimmerman not chosen repeatedly to pursue an escalatory path? Not sold on that.

THIS. All this proves (assuming it's legit) is an altercation. It does not prove who assaulted whom AT ALL.

Fist fights don't prove reasonably fear of death either. The guy with the gun still has no reason to fear death from the guy with the skittles.

Yeah, I'd say Werd to all this. I don't see the shame here, this pic doesn't change the fact that a kid is needlessly dead.

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch".

Yes, technically you are correct. But you're talking outliers at that point.

I prefer the way I learned it in martial arts; force for force. i.e. unless you are threatened with deadly force, you should not be justified in using it to defend yourself. And laws that skip that distinction, well... we're seeing the results right now.

Trophy Husband wrote:

It's a shame that the police station video elicited a flood of comments regarding the alleged assault and how there was no way Zimmerman took damage sufficient to support a self defense plea, but when confronted with new evidence the thread is silent.
Some went so far as to suspect the cops had completely falsified the on-scene report.
Is anyone willing to concede that in light of this new evidence the police station video was misleading, and that Zimmerman was assaulted and may have had reasonable cause to fear for death or immediate serious injury?

The police station video, though of poor quality, did match the photo of the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. However, the blood trails from it seemed odd based on his story of being on his back:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

This bleeding from his nose photo suggests that he was cleaned up between the attack and his trip to the police station, which I have not heard the police mention.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

Does that mean every fist fight should turn into a shooting?

As I mentioned months ago, unless you are a sworn law enforcement officer, you have absolutely no business initiating a potentially deadly confrontation over "suspicious behavior". The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

Well, sure. One can also die from a nearby lawnmower. That doesn't mean shooting any people who get too close while operating lawnmowers is justified.

[Edit: Quintin's example is better.]

Dimmerswitch wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

Well, sure. One can also die from a nearby lawnmower. That doesn't mean shooting any people who get too close while operating lawnmowers is justified.

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

Nomad wrote:

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

Correct. And maybe my response was too vague, but I'll state it clearly: in the (probably vast) majority of cases, a fist fight does not serve to provide a reasonable fear of death.

Thus why I still stand by my assertion (and that of most jurisdictions) that unless someone is proficient enough with hand-to-hand combat to count their body as a deadly weapon, that fisticuffs does not count as deadly force.

Nomad wrote:

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

I don't think it does refute those claims, while one punch can theoretically cause/lead to death, it's not reasonable to fear that every punch will.

Stengah wrote:
Nomad wrote:

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

I don't think it does refute those claims, while one punch can theoretically cause/lead to death, it's not reasonable to fear that every punch will.

I think, though, that in large parts of the South, a hoodie is enough to prove a reasonable fear of death.

Well, ok, I forgot that a hoodie counts as a weapon of deadly intent in Florida.

Nomad wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

One can die from the result of "one good punch". And if armed, even your just being knocked out can mean the deaths of others.

Well, sure. One can also die from a nearby lawnmower. That doesn't mean shooting any people who get too close while operating lawnmowers is justified.

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

I'll let CannibalCrowley speak to his intent, but I'm happy to make the stronger argument that reasonable fear of death doesn't include things that very rarely cause death (especially in the context of evaluating the legitimacy of a violent response to that fear).

I freely concede that the photo released by Zimmerman's lawyer is the strongest evidence we've seen so far that George Zimmerman suffered injury that night. As I noted earlier, the fact that Martin's autopsy found his only injuries were a gunshot wound to the chest, and a single small abrasion on his ring finger still feels a little odd to me. I'd expect a kid giving the kind of beatdown that Zimmerman had described previously to have more damage to his hands than that.

[Edit to add: and, if it's true that the prosecution is sitting on potentially-exculpatory evidence, as implied by the defense lawyer claim that they dragged their feet in disclosing the most-recent photo, shame on them. The remedy for institutional misbehavior (in the form of shoddy police work the night of the shooting) is definitely not more institutional misbehavior.]

While this might be a slight derail, I would say that the type of fighting some of you are referring to is boxing. I have seldom seen or been part of a real fight (not sport related) that is only comprised of people trying to punch each other. Most end up on the ground (in a 1 vs 1 situation) with a good deal of wrestling/choking/trying to inflict as much pain by whatever means possible. With a gun involved, even if the gun has not been drawn, you can quickly see how this could be deadly.

Paleocon wrote:

As I mentioned months ago, unless you are a sworn law enforcement officer, you have absolutely no business initiating a potentially deadly confrontation over "suspicious behavior". The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

fangblackbone wrote:

When you are carrying a lethal weapon, the onus is on you to avoid conflict because any conflict, no matter how trivial, is potentially life threatening. This is especially so because of the fact that you are not a member of law enforcement and you have been advised by law enforcement not to pursue.

Nothing about that has changed.

Get out of my head! ;P

Nomad wrote:

While this might be a slight derail, I would say that the type of fighting some of you are referring to is boxing. I have seldom seen or been part of a real fight (not sport related) that is only comprised of people trying to punch each other. Most end up on the ground (in a 1 vs 1 situation) with a good deal of wrestling/choking/trying to inflict as much pain by whatever means possible. With a gun involved, even if the gun has not been drawn, you can quickly see how this could be deadly.

Doubt that a minor abrasion on the ring finger is the usual result of these.

Nomad wrote:

While this might be a slight derail, I would say that the type of fighting some of you are referring to is boxing. I have seldom seen or been part of a real fight (not sport related) that is only comprised of people trying to punch each other. Most end up on the ground (in a 1 vs 1 situation) with a good deal of wrestling/choking/trying to inflict as much pain by whatever means possible. With a gun involved, even if the gun has not been drawn, you can quickly see how this could be deadly.

Not totally sure the point you're trying to make, but if it's "physical conflicts involving a punch are more deadly than you admit and it's not unreasonable to fear for your life" I expect you may want to look at the incidence of simple assault (with or without aggravated assault) as compared to the homicide rate.

Others have already addressed your point I've bolded above: namely, carrying a lethal weapon places a greater burden upon the wielder to avoid potentially-violent situations.

Nomad wrote:

While this might be a slight derail, I would say that the type of fighting some of you are referring to is boxing. I have seldom seen or been part of a real fight (not sport related) that is only comprised of people trying to punch each other. Most end up on the ground (in a 1 vs 1 situation) with a good deal of wrestling/choking/trying to inflict as much pain by whatever means possible. With a gun involved, even if the gun has not been drawn, you can quickly see how this could be deadly.

Except that the guy claiming he was fearing for his life is the guy who had the gun (drawn or not). So unless Trayvon drew a gun on him, Zimmerman should not have been in a position to justify deadly force, given the wounds sustained.

You are correct about the wrestling/pain/etc stuff when it comes to a street brawl style of fight between two people (the most common kind of hand-to-hand fighting that occurs). However, those fights rarely lead to fatal injuries.

I tried looking up some statistics on the rate of fatalities in altercations not involving weapons, and it's surprisingly hard to get any raw statistics. The best I found (though I really don't like that they didn't give the source of their data) was that there were 892 deaths in 2005 in the US from weaponless fights. Out of roughly 215,000 weaponless assaults. Giving a .4% fatality rate for individuals in weaponless assaults. At a strict calculation, that means one out of 250 people dying from fistfights if you assume that in each of these fights it was one person beating on another who couldn't defend themselves. If you assume that the victim in each case tried to fight back and landed at least one good punch (yes, a generous assumption), that makes it one out of every 500 people died from injuries sustained in a fistfight.

That may sound low to you, but what I could find from making assumptions via raw crime statistics made a case that it's even MORE uncommon to die from injuries sustained in unarmed conflicts than that.

So yes, I stand by my assertion from before, that in the vast majority of cases, an unarmed conflict does not give one cause to fear for their life. Which once again continues to make the case that "Stand Your Ground" is stupid at best, and Zimmerman's justification for deadly force is contrived at best (and, had he left the damn gun in his vehicle, the ensuing confrontation wouldn't have even made national news, possibly not even local news).

Paleocon wrote:

As I mentioned months ago, unless you are a sworn law enforcement officer, you have absolutely no business initiating a potentially deadly confrontation over "suspicious behavior". The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

Where I come from, pinning a guy to the ground and beating the tar out of him qualifies as "wrong".

Farscry wrote:
Nomad wrote:

It's very clear to me that CC was not saying the shooting was justified. He was refuting the many claims that "fist fights don't prove reasonable fear of death".

Correct. And maybe my response was too vague, but I'll state it clearly: in the (probably vast) majority of cases, a fist fight does not serve to provide a reasonable fear of death.

Thus why I still stand by my assertion (and that of most jurisdictions) that unless someone is proficient enough with hand-to-hand combat to count their body as a deadly weapon, that fisticuffs does not count as deadly force.

If I remember correctly the statute requires reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Under the circumstances this would appear to qualify. I'll reserve judgement until I hear what forensics and witnesses say.

Trophy Husband wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

As I mentioned months ago, unless you are a sworn law enforcement officer, you have absolutely no business initiating a potentially deadly confrontation over "suspicious behavior". The picture does nothing to change the fact that Zimmerman was a limpdick holster sniffer who killed an unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong.

Where I come from, pinning a guy to the ground and beating the tar out of him qualifies as "wrong".

That's not the point Paleocon is making and not the "nothing wrong" he's referring to. You know that too.