Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

I see that this is a Lumet film. I am now intrigued.

Stengah wrote:

Right, he was carrying with the intent to use it for self defense if necessary, not with the intent to kill him a black kid.

Not what I was arguing. Zimmerman was carrying the gun on a personal errand; he seems to have felt that his life was in enough danger that it was necessary. He spotted Martin, and started to follow him, with the expectation that he might have to use his gun (at one point, he describes Martin as having his hand in his waistband, implying he thought that Martin might have a gun).

He was primed to expect that he was putting himself in danger by following Martin, but he accepted that risk, presumably because he felt empowered by his weapon. And Florida law allowed him to pick a fight with an unarmed teen, then kill him after fisticuffs didn't go his way.

That's what I learned from this. In Florida, armed men no longer have to fear unarmed people they threaten and pursue, because if it goes bad, they can fire without warning and walk away free. Zimmerman's carry did nothing but enable him to trigger a confrontation and escalate it unnecessarily to a fatal conclusion. As one of the jurors said, he got away with the killing, because his actions were legal at every step.

Robear wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Right, he was carrying with the intent to use it for self defense if necessary, not with the intent to kill him a black kid.

Not what I was arguing. Zimmerman was carrying the gun on a personal errand; he seems to have felt that his life was in enough danger that it was necessary. He spotted Martin, and started to follow him, with the expectation that he might have to use his gun (at one point, he describes Martin as having his hand in his waistband, implying he thought that Martin might have a gun).

He was primed to expect that he was putting himself in danger by following Martin, but he accepted that risk, presumably because he felt empowered by his weapon. And Florida law allowed him to pick a fight with an unarmed teen, then kill him after fisticuffs didn't go his way.

That's what I learned from this. In Florida, armed men no longer have to fear unarmed people they threaten and pursue, because if it goes bad, they can fire without warning and walk away free. Zimmerman's carry did nothing but enable him to trigger a confrontation and escalate it unnecessarily to a fatal conclusion. As one of the jurors said, he got away with murder, because his actions were legal at every step.

Right, but the question was whether Zimmerman would have followed Martin if Flordia didn't have its SYG law, which is a separate thing from Florida's laws about carrying a firearm in public. I think Zimmerman would have followed Martin even if he didn't have a gun, because while I think he's responsible for the confrontation, I don't think he intended to kill Martin when he left his car.

The thing I find baffling about this case is how Zimmerman put HIMSELF into the situation where he felt threatened and "had to defend himself", against the advice of the operator, and subsequently Trayvon is dead.

To me this is eerily similar to a drunk driver killing someone through his own bad judgement, except in THAT case the driver's judgement is impaired. And yet, no sympathies would be given to the drunk driver in that case.

The thing I find baffling about this case is how Zimmerman put HIMSELF into the situation where he felt threatened and "had to defend himself", against the advice of the operator, and subsequently Trayvon is dead.

This has been the rub for me from the beginning. The guy put himself in the situation by taking actions of his choosing... and I don't get how you can claim self-defense after escalating it that many times.

Demosthenes wrote:

This has been the rub for me from the beginning. The guy put himself in the situation by taking actions of his choosing... and I don't get how you can claim self-defense after escalating it that many times.

Exactly! Considering how Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was "Up to something" and brought a gun with him, he clearly thought that he might be required to use it. It sure seems like he's a neighborhood watch guy with a vigilante complex. Otherwise why would he get out of his car, with a gun, to "check up" on someone he is following?

Frankly, I'm surprised that Zimmerman was able to take out his gun, take off the safety, and fire it at all given the circumstances he describes.

I'm guessing Zimmerman brings his gun with him everywhere, to be fair.

complexmath wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that Zimmerman was able to take out his gun, take off the safety, and fire it at all given the circumstances he describes.

The PF-9 doesn't have a manual safety. It uses a hammer block safety. So you just draw and pull the trigger.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-gun...

Edwin wrote:
complexmath wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that Zimmerman was able to take out his gun, take off the safety, and fire it at all given the circumstances he describes.

The PF-9 doesn't have a manual safety. It uses a hammer block safety. So you just draw and pull the trigger.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-gun...

Because... we needed guns that were easier to fire? All those accidental shootings are clearly just hearsay.

Demosthenes wrote:
Edwin wrote:
complexmath wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that Zimmerman was able to take out his gun, take off the safety, and fire it at all given the circumstances he describes.

The PF-9 doesn't have a manual safety. It uses a hammer block safety. So you just draw and pull the trigger.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-gun...

Because... we needed guns that were easier to fire? All those accidental shootings are clearly just hearsay.

Most handguns designed for combat/law enforcement don't have trigger lock safeties including all Glocks and Sig Sauers.

Demosthenes wrote:
Edwin wrote:
complexmath wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that Zimmerman was able to take out his gun, take off the safety, and fire it at all given the circumstances he describes.

The PF-9 doesn't have a manual safety. It uses a hammer block safety. So you just draw and pull the trigger.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-gun...

Because... we needed guns that were easier to fire? All those accidental shootings are clearly just hearsay.

It's not a new design, its very common amongst lots of models and is plenty safe. See: all striker fired pistols.

Guns are really powerful motivators without ever being fired as most people do not want to get shot, or even risk getting shot. In what world do you pull a gun on an unarmed assailant and they don't stop, maybe start profusely apologizing, back away, or offer to help you up? I suppose it's the world where you pull the trigger the instant the gun is aimed.

krev82 wrote:

Guns are really powerful motivators without ever being fired as most people do not want to get shot, or even risk getting shot. In what world do you pull a gun on an unarmed assailant and they don't stop, maybe start profusely apologizing, back away, or offer to help you up? I suppose it's the world where you pull the trigger the instant the gun is aimed.

Either that or Trayvon Martin was like a wild wolverine who didn't give an F about the gun and came at him anyway. Probably had PCP in those Skittles. This case is so ridiculous.

I'm guessing that when Zimmerman approached Martin he already had his gun drawn. Things went back and forth and Martin decided that his best chance for survival was to jump Zimmerman. Then either the gun went off or Zimmerman fired a panicked shot and lucked out.

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

Entirely possible. Though at this point I'm not terribly inclined to believe Zimmerman's account of events.

complexmath wrote:

Entirely possible. Though at this point I'm not terribly inclined to believe Zimmerman's account of events.

Me neither, but I can believe that part. If Martin was trying to keep the guy who was stalking him pinned on the ground, it'd make sense that he'd try to disarm Zimmerman once he saw he had a gun on him. It's kind of moot though, since the whole thing would have been avoided had Zimmerman A) not left his car, or B) identified himself at all to Martin.

Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

When? While he was busy banging Zimmerman's head into the ground (was Martin then using lethal force if the head banging is true because Zimmerman then clearly had a firearm and the boy was in fear of his own life?)? Going to grab it for what purpose? To get it away from the guy trying to use it? Maybe that was a defensive act. I really can't believe Zimmerman is walking away scott free. I get it, legally, but there are so many holes in his chain of events... just bleh.

Demosthenes wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

When? While he was busy banging Zimmerman's head into the ground (was Martin then using lethal force if the head banging is true because Zimmerman then clearly had a firearm and the boy was in fear of his own life?)? Going to grab it for what purpose? To get it away from the guy trying to use it? Maybe that was a defensive act. I really can't believe Zimmerman is walking away scott free. I get it, legally, but there are so many holes in his chain of events... just bleh.

I know.

Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

That just sounds insane. Your head is being bashed into the concrete so hard you think it's life threatening. You have someone on top of you physically. You think to draw and then shoot. Don't buy it for a moment.

Stengah wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

When? While he was busy banging Zimmerman's head into the ground (was Martin then using lethal force if the head banging is true because Zimmerman then clearly had a firearm and the boy was in fear of his own life?)? Going to grab it for what purpose? To get it away from the guy trying to use it? Maybe that was a defensive act. I really can't believe Zimmerman is walking away scott free. I get it, legally, but there are so many holes in his chain of events... just bleh.

I know.

Also, this case has very strongly confused my understanding of our judicial system in criminal trials. Innocent until proven guilty... but since when is it required for prosecution to prove motive? They could very easily prove that Martin was killed by Zimmerman... he admitted it. But then the prosecution have to prove WHY he wanted to kill Martin, rather than the person claiming self defense showing clear evidence that it was. Maybe I just don't get it, but I thought the WHY in trials was pretty rarely used outside of like opening/closing arguments compared to the proof of how... unless you're relying highly on circumstantial evidence.

DSGamer wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

That just sounds insane. Your head is being bashed into the concrete so hard you think it's life threatening. You have someone on top of you physically. You think to draw and then shoot. Don't buy it for a moment.

Me neither, but that's his statement to the cops.

As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled 'Help' several times. The suspect told me 'Shut the f*ck up' as I tried to sit up right, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalks several times. I continued to yell 'Help' each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell 'Help.' As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say 'Your gonna die tonight Mother f*cker.' I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said 'You got me.'
Demosthenes wrote:

Also, this case has very strongly confused my understanding of our judicial system in criminal trials. Innocent until proven guilty... but since when is it required for prosecution to prove motive? They could very easily prove that Martin was killed by Zimmerman... he admitted it. But then the prosecution have to prove WHY he wanted to kill Martin, rather than the person claiming self defense showing clear evidence that it was. Maybe I just don't get it, but I thought the WHY in trials was pretty rarely used outside of like opening/closing arguments compared to the proof of how... unless you're relying highly on circumstantial evidence.

It's because of Florida's SYG law. Because Zimmerman claims he killed Martin in self defense, the prosecution had to prove otherwise.

Stengah wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Zimmerman never drew his gun on Martin, but once the fight started, he was able to get ahold of it while they were on the ground and shoot Martin. His story is that Martin saw it during the fight, and was going to grab it, but he got it first.

That just sounds insane. Your head is being bashed into the concrete so hard you think it's life threatening. You have someone on top of you physically. You think to draw and then shoot. Don't buy it for a moment.

Me neither, but that's his statement to the cops.

As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled 'Help' several times. The suspect told me 'Shut the f*ck up' as I tried to sit up right, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalks several times. I continued to yell 'Help' each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell 'Help.' As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say 'Your gonna die tonight Mother f*cker.' I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said 'You got me.'

That chronology flies so much in the face of reason that he might as well have said "I dropped the gun and it just went off -- killing Martin as it fell".

Demosthenes wrote:

... but since when is it required for prosecution to prove motive?

It depends on what the murder statute requires. Florida's murder statute requires either premeditation or a "depraved mind," or an unlawful killing that occurs during a number of listed crimes like trafficking, arson, sexual battery, robbery, etc.

I think the mental state evidence would have focused on showing he had a depraved mind, and/or that he wasn't in reasonable fear of his life.

Stengah wrote:

Me neither, but that's his statement to the cops.

As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled 'Help' several times. The suspect told me 'Shut the f*ck up' as I tried to sit up right, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalks several times. I continued to yell 'Help' each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell 'Help.' As I slid the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say 'Your gonna die tonight Mother f*cker.' I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said 'You got me.'

Does that actually happen outside of TV and movies? I know there are other things that stick out as inconsistent, but does anyone else just find that weird?

Would he have been able to speak after being shot in the chest and through his heart?

If anything, I'd say he was mis-remembering Martin saying "You shot me?!"

Bloo Driver wrote:

Does that actually happen outside of TV and movies? I know there are other things that stick out as inconsistent, but does anyone else just find that weird?

Surely at some point, it's been in a book, too.