Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Maq wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Maq wrote:

edit. Deleting everything.

I cannot understand how anyone comes down on Zimmerman's side in this debate and if they do I'm not sure I want to be speaking to them.

I am fairly certain that no one in this thread sides with Zimmerman. Some just don't think the situation is as simple as others.

If you're arguing that he had a right to defend himself with deadly force you're arguing he was in the right to get out of his car and pursue someone while armed with a firearm after being advised by police not to. I reject that premise utterly. This is not a tragic happenstance - Zimmerman made this happen.

I don't know about that. Now, don't get me wrong--if Martin didn't get shot, and this all ended with some racist Death Wish wanna-be like Zimmerman getting a beat down and Martin walks off happily to enjoy his Skittles, I'd be like, 'good for you Martin.' I know we're not supposed to resort to violence, but I'd be lying if said I wouldn't feel like everyone here got what they deserved if Martin was still alive and Zimmerman didn't suffer anything worse than a broken nose.

However, even if the other guy is being a horribly ugly human being, they don't deserve to die, so you can't go around putting them in fear for their life. If Martin crossed that line where he put Zimmerman in fear for his life, he went too far however much this guy deserved retaliation.

Now, this is all going to depend on facts, and what complicates it is if Zimmerman thought he was in fear for his life because he's the kind of racist coward who would think that and Martin mistakenly gave this guy too much credit as a human being, but in the end, there is the possibility that Martin made the final event in this tragedy happen by escalating things too far, even if he was totally blameless--and I would have thought it was kinda cool if this whole thing only went as far as Zimmerman getting a well-deserved ass-kicking--at the start of the incident.

You can still be on someone's 'side' and acknowledge they screwed up at some point. That's the thing about the rule of law as opposed to the world these Zimmerman types want because they watched too many Charles Bronson movies: sometimes you have to blame the guy you're rooting for, and even being a racist asshole doesn't make you an outlaw.

Who decides what sets the standard for reasonable fear? It seems like only Zimmerman is being allowed to say. If he's as paranoid as his description makes him sound, do we really want him to be the one who decides this thing, and uses a gun to reinforce his decisions?

Tanglebones wrote:

Who decides what sets the standard for reasonable fear? It seems like only Zimmerman is being allowed to say. If he's as paranoid as his description makes him sound, do we really want him to be the one who decides this thing, and uses a gun to reinforce his decisions?

This is a great question/point. Setting a standard for this seems incredibly hard, since the idea of "reasonable fear" is greatly dependent on the person experiencing it.

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Who decides what sets the standard for reasonable fear? It seems like only Zimmerman is being allowed to say. If he's as paranoid as his description makes him sound, do we really want him to be the one who decides this thing, and uses a gun to reinforce his decisions?

This is a great question/point. Setting a standard for this seems incredibly hard, since the idea of "reasonable fear" is greatly dependent on the person experiencing it.

Which is precisely why I keep harping on how bad it is to build a law that determines justification on killing people based upon a feeling.

Instead, responsibility should be for one to retreat (and/or avoid the situation), meet force-for-force initially, and resort to deadly force if you are unable to avoid being threatened with deadly force by any other means. That leaves the complexity to the police investigation and courtroom in outlier cases.

[edit]And please, keep my posts above in mind as well, both regarding the likelihood that unarmed conflict is fatal (very low) and the point I made that both Martin and Zimmerman failed in the first responsibility I note here, to varying degrees: the responsibility to retreat and avoid the situation (again, based upon what is in the official information we have to go on).

CheezePavilion wrote:

If Martin crossed that line where he put Zimmerman in fear for his life, he went too far however much this guy deserved retaliation.

At what point when you're being pursued by an unknown armed man are you the one crossing lines?

I find the shifting of the ambit of this discussion to how much force Martin used in defending himself to belie a frightening willingness to write off the fact that he was being pursued by an armed stranger who'd been warned off by police.

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

Maq wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If Martin crossed that line where he put Zimmerman in fear for his life, he went too far however much this guy deserved retaliation.

At what point when you're being pursued by an unknown armed man are you the one crossing lines?

When you are not in fear for your life, but you put the other person in fear of his.

Remember what you wrote: "If you're arguing that he had a right to defend himself with deadly force you're arguing he was in the right to get out of his car and pursue someone while armed with a firearm after being advised by police not to." What I'm trying to point out is that what you said is too absolute. There are arguments where one can say Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with deadly force WITHOUT needing to argue he was right to get out of his car without contradicting one's original argument about getting out of the car.

edit:

I find the shifting of the ambit of this discussion to how much force Martin used in defending himself to belie a frightening willingness to write off the fact that he was being pursued by an armed stranger who'd been warned off by police.

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

I disagree. Both with your argument that we don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self-defense, and with the idea that doing so writes off any facts.

There are arguments where one can say Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with deadly force WITHOUT needing to argue he was right to get out of his car without contradicting one's original argument about getting out of the car.

I disagree... the whole crux is was Zimmerman "right" in getting out of the car.. throw on that armed as well and its impossible to continue any arguing past this...BUT....

That its coming to this doesnt surprise me in the least but it would be way off topic.. our "no consequences society" seems to believe that no matter what you have done individually to put yourself into a situation you ultimately are not held to any consequences of those actions.

TheGameguru wrote:
There are arguments where one can say Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with deadly force WITHOUT needing to argue he was right to get out of his car without contradicting one's original argument about getting out of the car.

I disagree... the whole crux is was Zimmerman "right" in getting out of the car.. throw on that armed as well and its impossible to continue any arguing past this...BUT....

No, that's not the whole crux. The crux is the concept of unnecessary escalation: that even if you start out wrong, that doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong for everything you do past that point.

That its coming to this doesnt surprise me in the least but it would be way off topic.. our "no consequences society" seems to believe that no matter what you have done individually to put yourself into a situation you ultimately are not held to any consequences of those actions.

And I could say this "there will be consequences society" is what produces people like Zimmerman in the first place, if we're going to go to that level of the conversation.

As a homeowner, I know what Skittles and iced tea do to property values. Ben Franklin once said "Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead." Of the two people who know what happened, one is dead, and the other should've listened to the goddamn police.

One question is, under what circumstances does pulling a gun NOT turn Zimmerman into the aggressor in this situation? Once he's armed, he's got to explain why he thought that he was in danger from an unarmed person?

Also, as far as being in "reasonable fear" for one's life, that explicitly puts it *outside* one person's mind, because it establishes that the fear must be something that would be shared by most people in that situation. This means that even if Zimmerman had a fear, if it would be *unreasonable* to most people in that situation, he can still be held accountable. Paranoia is not an excuse, in other words, and "heat of the moment" is going to turn this into manslaughter or worse. (How can it be heat of the moment when he followed Martin and instigated the confrontation? That sounds like pre-meditation, frankly. In Maryland, Zimmerman would be looking at massive prison time.)

I've seen worse injuries in sports and martial arts, and even in a few street fights, and the people involved did not react with lethal force or seem to believe their lives were in danger from the injury (although obviously those circumstances are calmer.) Even allowing for Zimmerman's state of mind, he had the upper hand even after he was struck, because he was armed and his opponent was not. Why was the right response not "display the weapon and back off"?

That's what he'll have to explain to the jury or judge. I don't think he'll be able to do that successfully.

No, that's not the whole crux. The crux is the concept of unnecessary escalation: that even if you start out wrong, that doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong for everything you do past that point

Thank you for illustrating my second point perfectly..

Maq wrote:

I find the shifting of the ambit of this discussion to how much force Martin used in defending himself to belie a frightening willingness to write off the fact that he was being pursued by an armed stranger who'd been warned off by police.

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

Under the Stand Your Ground statute, yes, you can viably make the case that Martin feared for his life, what with being pursued by an armed stranger who was so intent on pursuit that he left his vehicle and continued on foot.

Under standard responsibility to retreat laws, then no, you don't get to justify any action Martin wanted to take at that point. If he had the option of retreating, then he had the responsibility to retreat.

So I would agree that under the Florida law, the case can be made (even though I personally disagree with it) for both individuals that they were acting out of "reasonable fear death or serious injury." This is why so many of us are railing against the law; it makes it far too easy for conflicts to swiftly escalate past the point of reason.

Farscry wrote:
Maq wrote:

I find the shifting of the ambit of this discussion to how much force Martin used in defending himself to belie a frightening willingness to write off the fact that he was being pursued by an armed stranger who'd been warned off by police.

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

Under the Stand Your Ground statute, yes, you can viably make the case that Martin feared for his life, what with being pursued by an armed stranger who was so intent on pursuit that he left his vehicle and continued on foot.

Under standard responsibility to retreat laws, then no, you don't get to justify any action Martin wanted to take at that point. If he had the option of retreating, then he had the responsibility to retreat.

So I would agree that under the Florida law, the case can be made (even though I personally disagree with it) for both individuals that they were acting out of "reasonable fear death or serious injury." This is why so many of us are railing against the law; it makes it far too easy for conflicts to swiftly escalate past the point of reason.

How effectively can he retreat, if he's been followed, first by vehicle, then on foot, by a man armed with a deadly ranged weapon?

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

To those people I call bullsh*t and make obscene gestures.

Maq out.

TheGameguru wrote:
No, that's not the whole crux. The crux is the concept of unnecessary escalation: that even if you start out wrong, that doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong for everything you do past that point

Thank you for illustrating my second point perfectly..

How so?

Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

Well, that's because you're moving the goalposts from what you were originally arguing, at least with me. If you want to argue "there's no way Zimmerman winds up in fear for his life" then fine. But remember you started this by saying if you're arguing he was right to shoot, he was right to get out of the car in the first place. That's a different argument. Two people can agree that he was wrong to get out of the car, but disagree that he was wrong to shoot, and their disagreement can be a matter of facts, not logic. That's different from what you were originally arguing.

Tanglebones wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Maq wrote:

I find the shifting of the ambit of this discussion to how much force Martin used in defending himself to belie a frightening willingness to write off the fact that he was being pursued by an armed stranger who'd been warned off by police.

You don't get to call anything Zimmerman did self defence. He instigated the confrontation. Martin could have called in a goddamn airstrike at this point and it would not make a blind bit of difference, he'd have stood his ground against an assailant.

Under the Stand Your Ground statute, yes, you can viably make the case that Martin feared for his life, what with being pursued by an armed stranger who was so intent on pursuit that he left his vehicle and continued on foot.

Under standard responsibility to retreat laws, then no, you don't get to justify any action Martin wanted to take at that point. If he had the option of retreating, then he had the responsibility to retreat.

So I would agree that under the Florida law, the case can be made (even though I personally disagree with it) for both individuals that they were acting out of "reasonable fear death or serious injury." This is why so many of us are railing against the law; it makes it far too easy for conflicts to swiftly escalate past the point of reason.

How effectively can he retreat, if he's been followed, first by vehicle, then on foot, by a man armed with a deadly ranged weapon?

I don't know the layout of the area he was in, nor if he managed to escape from Zimmerman's view and then confronted him (some accounts of the story indicate that, others don't), or any other mitigating factors that would determine whether retreat was still possible or not. That would be an element that the authorities should take into account if Martin felt he was unable to retreat and thus escalated the conflict in self-defense.

I'm speaking in hypotheticals right now, because this wasn't (and isn't) the legal situation in Florida, and we don't know all the facts. I'm merely conceding that depending on the details of the case, Martin may not have been justified in escalating the conflict, and that is independent of whether Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin (which I've repeatedly stated I feel - given the details we know - he was not).

Maq wrote:

At this point I find I am arguing with people who feel that if you chase someone while armed with a gun, then shoot them, you can claim with a straight face you were in fear for your life.

To those people I call bullsh*t and make obscene gestures.

Maq out.

Well, that was constructive. I'm not sure whom you are arguing that precise point with; certainly not me, because I never stated such a thing.

Maybe Zimmerman had just seen Existenz and thought Martin could construct a gun out of Skittles and iced tea. There's your fearing for his life. Can't explain that.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Maybe Zimmerman had just seen Existenz and thought Martin could construct a gun out of Skittles and iced tea. There's your fearing for his life. Can't explain that.

The slide goes back, the slide goes forward. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

Tanglebones wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

And there's still that pesky fact that he was told to leave the kid alone in the first place...

Since he had a gun, how exactly did he let Martin get so close to him that he was directly assaulted? A gun is *not* a deterrent if the other person doesn't know it's there. Why not display the gun and let Martin run off, or try to get him to hang around for the police?

Zimmerman did none of that. He got into a fight, and instead of warning Martin, he simply pulls and shoots. There is so much wrong with that and the events that led up to it that I don't even know where to start. Zimmerman had the weapon; he was controlling the situation, whether Martin knew it or not, and he needed to act like it. He had that responsibility. Instead of acting to help everyone by, say, calling the police and holding Martin at gunpoint, he by his own account goes seeking trouble, allows Martin to start it, then shoots Martin and claims self-defense; actually, not even self-defense, but simply justifiable homicide.

It's despicable. I don't care if Martin was a Golden Gloves boxer. If Zimmerman didn't know not to follow someone in the dark, or not to disregard a police dispatcher, or not to fail to announce that he has a weapon, or not to leave strangers alone when they are not obviously doing wrong, or not to escalate to deadly force as a first reaction to attack, then he's got no business carrying a firearm.

Martin was not beaten, indicating Zimmerman did not engage in fisticuffs with him. Which means Zimmerman was unarmed when (if) Martin came after him - no one jumps a guy with a gun in the dark in an unfamiliar neighborhood, especially not when that guy has been following him. Zimmerman had no intent of using the gun to control the situation, he simply shot when he got in over his head. That's my interpretation.

When you make it easy for people to get, carry, and use firearms, this is what you get. Just by the law of averages, some of them will be incompetent. Zimmerman is one of those, as far as I can tell. He'd have been better off leaving the gun at home.

Tanglebones wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

I hadn't seen this stated before. Do you have a link I can check out?

Trophy Husband wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

It's my understanding Zimmerman is claiming he drew and fired his weapon while he was on his back and Martin was assaulting him. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to fear for serious injury. If it comes to light that Zimmerman drew his weapon prior to that, his actions become much more suspect.

Again, he killed the only other person at the scene, so eyewitness testimony is nonexistent. Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story.

I hadn't seen this stated before. Do you have a link I can check out?

Not offhand, but it's been repeated several times that the only injury to Martin in his autopsy other than the gunshot was a minor abrasion to his finger. This is not at all consistent with a knock-down drag out fight, as described by Zimmerman in his statement.

Robear wrote:

Zimmerman had the weapon; he was controlling the situation, whether Martin knew it or not, and he needed to act like it. He had that responsibility.

I bolded the part you got wrong.

I think everyone is in agreement that Zimmerman was wrong to get out of the car and follow Martin. I think everyone is in agreement that Martin is dead at Zimmerman's hand, and that is neither good nor right. We can argue back and forth about when Zimmerman felt he was justified in shooting someone, but that is not the point. The point is that Zimmerman did not have the responsibility to act like he was in control of the situation - he had (and would have again) a right to take out anyone who puts him in a frame of mind that he feels like he could get hurt.

Zimmerman could walk away with an apology from the state for wasting his time, and if the Stand Your Ground law goes away, I would feel better about the whole situation, even though I think he should do hard time for murder.

Atras wrote:
Robear wrote:

Zimmerman had the weapon; he was controlling the situation, whether Martin knew it or not, and he needed to act like it. He had that responsibility.

I bolded the part you got wrong.

I think everyone is in agreement that Zimmerman was wrong to get out of the car and follow Martin. I think everyone is in agreement that Martin is dead at Zimmerman's hand, and that is neither good nor right. We can argue back and forth about when Zimmerman felt he was justified in shooting someone, but that is not the point. The point is that Zimmerman did not have the responsibility to act like he was in control of the situation - he had (and would have again) a right to take out anyone who puts him in a frame of mind that he feels like he could get hurt.

Zimmerman could walk away with an apology from the state for wasting his time, and if the Stand Your Ground law goes away, I would feel better about the whole situation, even though I think he should do hard time for murder.

He should have shot himself then. He put himself in that frame of mind.

Atras, I appreciate the point, but that's playing games with words. You're raising another issue; does a person with a weapon have a responsibility to recognize the power he holds, or not? I think that's a different discussion. I'm assuming here that that's a basic principle of gun ownership and carry. It's my belief that people who don't believe that should not carry, as that shows that they don't really understand life and death.

Frankly, I have more respect for people like Jovan Belcher who understand and regret the damage they've done in a moment of lost control, and attempt to atone for it in some way. Zimmerman's statement afterwards seemed to focus on the dislocation to his life, rather than any culpability he might have for destroying a life because he didn't understand what he was getting into and took the coward's way out. That's how it seems to me with what I've heard and read about the case.

Maybe I'm wrong and we'll find out he's a paragon of virtue. But so far, I don't see much indication of that beyond the fact that he doesn't seem to have been a racist. I certainly have not seen him stand up and take full responsibility for what he did.

Robear wrote:

Frankly, I have more respect for people like Jovan Belcher who understand and regret the damage they've done in a moment of lost control, and attempt to atone for it in some way. Zimmerman's statement afterwards seemed to focus on the dislocation to his life, rather than any culpability he might have for destroying a life because he didn't understand what he was getting into and took the coward's way out. That's how it seems to me with what I've heard and read about the case.

Maybe I'm wrong and we'll find out he's a paragon of virtue. But so far, I don't see much indication of that beyond the fact that he doesn't seem to have been a racist. I certainly have not seen him stand up and take full responsibility for what he did.

And actually his (and his wife's) post arrest behavior has been sketchy too.