Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Yeah, personally, I'm right there with you Maq. This is one of those areas where I genuinely envy most of the rest of the "1st world".

Farscry wrote:
Maq wrote:

Actually if I recall the Florida statute that was posted upthread, if someone is behaving in a threatening manner or puts you in reasonable fear of imminent harm you're pretty much covered by stand your ground, so by Florida law he hasn't escalated anything because imminent violence is essentially assumed. Martin knew he was being pursued, as he said as much on the phone, so he's already aware of a potential threat to his person. Now with that in mind, it remains Zimmerman who instigated that situation as he's the one who pursued Martin.

I get what your saying, and again I agree with you philosophically. For the legal question, I'm going to reiterate my point about standard laws (will get to the Florida law in a minute): in most jurisdictions, there are some fairly conservative requirements you must meet in order to have justified the use of violence and claim it was in self-defense.

A good summary reading is here.

As you've noted, Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin and the assumed threatening standoff that resulted would meet the requirements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Zimmerman was more physically imposing, older, and exhibiting threatening behavior toward Martin (no one contests these things). Martin had every reason to feel threatened.

Where we run into potential issues is the fourth requirement, Preclusion:

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

We only have Zimmerman's word to go off of, so we do not actually know whether he caught up to Martin and put him into a position where Martin felt cornered, and thus had no other safe option than to throw the first punch (if he was the one to initiate a physical altercation, which we also still don't have proof of either way); or whether Martin got pissed off (quite understandably) about Zimmerman pursuing him and decided to initiate the actual confrontation (this is Zimmerman's claim, but we only have his word to go off of on this).

So by the principle of Preclusion, if the latter scenario is the case, then by the standards of most jurisdictions in the US, Martin was not justified in escalating to physical violence.

Also, by these principles, Zimmerman would not have been jusified in shooting Martin out of "self-defense", regardless of how the conflict was initiated, because given his physical superiority over Martin, he did not need to escalate the conflict from non-lethal force to lethal force.

STAND YOUR GROUND

Here we get to the problem with Florida's Stand Your Ground law (and they're not alone; I did some checking and this is more widespread than I realized, to my great disappointment. Even my current homestate of Iowa has a form of Castle Doctrine, and it's written too vaguely), and why it makes this whole case even messier than it would be if the law were limited to Castle Doctrine.

The Florida law relies too much upon generalities:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 provides further details regarding specific circumstances, including the standard elements of Castle Doctrine. None of them are any more relevant to this case than option (1) in this quote.

The biggest problems are that "reasonably" is never sufficiently defined, nor is "great bodily harm." As a result, depending on the circumstances I listed above, Martin may have "reasonably" believed that physical force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. Likewise, again only because these generalized terms are undefined, one could argue that depending on the circumstances, at the point when Zimmerman fired the gun, he may have "reasonably" believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent "great bodily harm."

And again, I do not believe the latter at all, and I'm dubious about the former. But the law is so poorly written that depending on how much rules lawyering goes on, it could be made to apply.

776.012 and 776.013 are both also covered by 776.041, which places an additional onus upon the person who provoked the fight:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

A Florida judge has denied defense requests to end 24-hour GPS monitoring of George Zimmerman.

Given that Zimmerman lied about bond money and surrendered an expired passport, this seems like a sensible decision.

Not directly related to Zimmerman, but Texas A&M just published a study that examined the effect of castle doctrine/stand your ground laws had in the 21 states that passed them and compared those effects with states without those laws.

Results presented indicate that castle doctrine law does not deter crime. Furthermore, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out moderate-sized deterrence effects. Thus, while our view is that it is a priori reasonable to expect that strengthening self-defense law would deter crime, we find this is not the case.

More significantly, results indicate that castle doctrine laws increase total homicides by around 8 percent. Put differently, the laws induce an additional 600 homicides per year across the 21 states in our sample that enacted castle doctrine laws. This finding is robust to a wide set of difference-in-differences specifications, including region-by-year fixed effects, state-specific linear time trends, and controls for time-varying factors such as economic conditions, state welfare spending, and policing and incarceration rates. These findings provide evidence that lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.

A critical question is whether all the additional homicides that were reported as murders or non-negligent manslaughters could have been legally justified. Based on the results of various tests and exercises performed here, our view it is that this is unlikely, albeit not impossible.

He can still raise that defense at the start of the trial. This way, his attorneys get more time to prepare for that hearing.

Robert Zimmerman, Jr., the older brother of George, might not have his job as family spokesperson much longer...or this is part of his brother's self-defense strategy.

Yesterday he Tweeted the following pic that compared Martin with De’Marquise Elkins, a 17-year-old suspect in the murder of a Georgia infant that happened over the weekend:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGJySLeCEAA3Cwd.jpg)

He then followed that up with further Tweets clarifying his views:

When Robert Jr. did a media blitz at the beginning of the year I actually thought he was doing a decent job trying to defuse the racially charged aspects of the shooting. Now it's kinda clear he's always thought that race was a major factor in what happened, mainly that his brother was fully justified shooting Martin because black people are scary.

So I am sure I read that right.

Liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did to a woman and baby is the reason people think blacks might be risky.

That is what it would read as in the queen's English?

KingGorilla wrote:

So I am sure I read that right.

Liberal media should ask if what these two black teens did to a woman and baby is the reason people think blacks might be risky.

That is what it would read as in the queen's English?

I think so, but don't quote me on that. Either way, what some OTHER kid did many months after his brother shot a kid... has... what relevance?

The important question is: were the two black teens unarmed and wearing hoodies?

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Heh, just make a list of American serial killers. Statistically they all look more like Dexter and Trinity than Doakes.

Farscry wrote:

The important question is: were the two black teens unarmed and wearing hoodies?

You haven't seen Existenz? Skittle guns are dangerous.

Seth wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Heh, just make a list of American serial killers. Statistically they all look more like Dexter and Trinity than Doakes.

That too.

Obviously the logic behind racism is flawed to begin with, but just seems really stupid to take one incident and say "SEE! They're risky!"

Not to mention really stupid and damaging to his brother's case.

Seth wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Heh, just make a list of American serial killers. Statistically they all look more like Dexter and Trinity than Doakes.

Not to mention pedophiles.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Remember that Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.

So, according to his brother's racial logic, he must be an illegal alien who's stealing jobs from real Americans when he's not busy committing crimes, fathering anchor babies, or refusing to learn English.

OG_slinger wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Remember that Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.

So, according to his brother's racial logic, he must be an illegal alien who's stealing jobs from real Americans when he's not busy committing crimes, fathering anchor babies, or refusing to learn English.

Yup. Regardless of his actual ethnicity, I assumed he doesn't find white people risky.

OG_slinger wrote:

He then followed that up with further Tweets clarifying his views:

I just want to state here I want to reserve "mightB risky" as my hip-hop name.

SixteenBlue wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Remember that Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.

So, according to his brother's racial logic, he must be an illegal alien who's stealing jobs from real Americans when he's not busy committing crimes, fathering anchor babies, or refusing to learn English.

Yup. Regardless of his actual ethnicity, I assumed he doesn't find white people risky.

Then clearly he is no student of the last millennium.

Oh, longer than that, I think Nomad. We're over-achievers in violence...

Don't lump me in you animals.

So, you violently reject the assertion?

Still reminds me of this. Linked because, good god.

Nomad wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Do I need to send the article about the white kid that set a gay kid on fire to him? Or any other countless stories of white people being total scum?

Remember that Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.

So, according to his brother's racial logic, he must be an illegal alien who's stealing jobs from real Americans when he's not busy committing crimes, fathering anchor babies, or refusing to learn English.

Yup. Regardless of his actual ethnicity, I assumed he doesn't find white people risky.

Then clearly he is no student of the last millennium. :(

I really do love this kind of idiotic rherotic. In their world, the people they cite are case examples, but James Holmes/Adam Lanza/Charles Carl Roberts IV/Charles Whitman/Wade Michael Page are all, stunningly, outliers who are not relevant to the discussion.

(The above listed people have, combined, murdered nearly 100 men, women and children. But again, NOT REPRESENTATIVE because there are no pictures of them flipping the bird to the camera, which is an obvious sign of violent tendencies.)

IMAGE(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cambio.com/media/2013/03/jennifer-lawrence-middle-finger-oscars-pic-1362756012.jpg)

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

I am not sure if you can say that ironically about Katniss Everdeen.

Geez, that link was horrible. I was *joking*, KG, did you miss that? Or did I miss the humor in your response?

Prederick wrote:

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

Hellz yeah, she's OG.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Prederick wrote:

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

Hellz yeah, she's OG.

Why is her ring finger like halfway up?

Demosthenes wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Prederick wrote:

HOLY sh*t JENNIFER LAWRENCE IS A MURDEROUS THUG.

Hellz yeah, she's OG.

Why is her ring finger like halfway up?

The slight finger extension makes for a more structured, formal bird flipping than the more conventional, but sloppy closed fist. I use the form myself, and feel it has a statuesque grandeur.

Robear wrote:

Geez, that link was horrible. I was *joking*, KG, did you miss that? Or did I miss the humor in your response?

The two are not at all related. Sadly, something on facebook reminded me of that gem, and I wanted to share with the class. And in my haste I seem to have caused offense.

That tweet reminds me of the photo.