George Zimmerman says he lives in constant fear; has PTSD

[Ben in LA]

Putting this here before it gets moved to the Politics section.

Boo fucking hoo. He expects sympathy? Maybe he needs to talk to Orenthal to see how his life is going to end up. And stop bringing Obama into discussions about problems YOU caused due to YOUR actions, Massengil bottle!

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22545412&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FoWMDwpnQxh

[trish]

Yeah, he's afraid for his life. As long as there are stand-your-ground and right to carry laws that line will give him an excuse to kill whomever he wants. My advice: give the little shit a wide berth.

[robertlouis]

Yeah, it's all that damn Trayvon Martin's fault. FFS.

[nysprod]

Georgie boy could go fuck his own fat ass with his PTSD...

[wearboots4me]

Zimmerman, you chose to carry a gun,you chose to get out of the vehicle when the emergency dispatcher told you not to. Now you need to learn to live with the consequences of your decisions.

[Stavros]

Putting this here before it gets moved to the Politics section.

Boo fucking hoo. He expects sympathy? Maybe he needs to talk to Orenthal to see how his life is going to end up. And stop bringing Obama into discussions about problems YOU caused due to YOUR actions, Massengil bottle!

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22545412&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FoWMDwpnQxh

A quote from the link above:
"“Honestly, I [would] love to live a calm life without being in the press" -then why did he agree to give an interview to Univision?

[KinkyDisaster]

Aspires to be a lawyer ... How insulting, and late.

[nysprod]

Lookit, somebody enters your house in the dead of night to rob you, or you're walking down a street and someone pulls a weapon on you, you got every right to protect yourself and your property with deadly force...but you initiate contact with someone who's minding their own business, who you think may have done something, and especially after you've been told by a police dispatcher not to approach but ignore them and end up killing that person...then you're the aggressor, it's your fault, you go to jail.

[maxpower]

Lookit, somebody enters your house in the dead of night to rob you, or you're walking down a street and someone pulls a weapon on you, you got every right to protect yourself and your property with deadly force...but you initiate contact with someone who's minding their own business, who you think may have done something, and especially after you've been told by a police dispatcher not to approach but ignore them and end up killing that person...then you're the aggressor, it's your fault, you go to jail.


...unless you live in Florida.

[giovanni_hotel]

http://global3.memecdn.com/im-not-certain-but-i-think-karma-is-a-bitch_o_1175114.jpghttp://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Karma_abcd46_2505496.jpg

[trish]

...unless you live in Florida....or in Texas (especially if you're texting in a movie theater before the main feature starts). Mother Fucking Gun Nuts!

[nysprod]

You can't pick a fight with someone and then claim self defense...there's no order in that, just chaos.

[Silcc69]

Did he ever get his money from his ebay auction?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111239922810?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

[NYBURBS]

Lookit, somebody enters your house in the dead of night to rob you, or you're walking down a street and someone pulls a weapon on you, you got every right to protect yourself and your property with deadly force...but you initiate contact with someone who's minding their own business, who you think may have done something, and especially after you've been told by a police dispatcher not to approach but ignore them and end up killing that person...then you're the aggressor, it's your fault, you go to jail.

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.

[nysprod]

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.

More legal/political gobblygook and another aurgument for why you first kill all the lawyers and then the politicians.

[trish]

The Judge did take the time to instruct the jury specifically on the stand your ground law.

[NYBURBS]

More legal/political gobblygook and another aurgument for why you first kill all the lawyers and then the politicians.

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars. You know there have been car break-ins, but you're not sure what his deal is. You then see him next to your car, so you go over and ask him what he's doing. He in turn takes issue with you "confronting" him about his activities, and he strikes at you.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.

Maybe you feel someone should just call the police, and maybe that's the safer bet, but asking someone a question is not illegal nor is it inherently aggressive. All of that legally "gobblygook" developed for a reason over the ages, and without it you're left to being ruled only by the passions of the mob, whatever they might be at that moment.

[trish]

If you ask someone who you think may be breaking into cars, "What are you doing?" you're certainly aware the question may lead to a confrontation. To the degree the interrogator believes there's crime afoot, is the degree to which he's looking for trouble when he asks his question.

First call the cops. Inform them of the situation. If he's looking into your car, so what? If he's actually braking into your car, it obvious what he doing...no questions are necessary, no interaction is necessary... just inform the cops a brake in is in progress. Is there something valuable in the car? Drugs? A gun in the glove compartment? A couple of grand in U.S. dollars? Probably not. Wait for the cops.

[nysprod]

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars. You know there have been car break-ins, but you're not sure what his deal is. You then see him next to your car, so you go over and ask him what he's doing. He in turn takes issue with you "confronting" him about his activities, and he strikes at you.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.

Maybe you feel someone should just call the police, and maybe that's the safer bet, but asking someone a question is not illegal nor is it inherently aggressive. All of that legally "gobblygook" developed for a reason over the ages, and without it you're left to being ruled only by the passions of the mob, whatever they might be at that moment.

But that isn't what happened here...that boy was walking along minding his own business...and the mob has taken over control, it's just that this time they got the lawyers and politicians to make it legal.

The nazis did the same thing, at least in the early years...devised a whole bunch of laws which allowed them to appropriate Jewish property "legally."

[broncofan]

Except that's an overly broad definition of initial aggressor. Look, I don't think he used great judgement in following that kid, and he is going to have to learn to deal with being a social outcast, but most people that comment on the legal grounds of the case don't understand the legalities behind a justification defense.

And to the people that talk about SYG, this wasn't a circumstance where one would need to apply that law. SYG removes the common law duty to retreat, but that duty, at least in most states, only applies once you're at the point that deadly force would need to be used, and even then it generally only applies if you can withdraw in complete safety. NYS still has "duty to retreat," but we'd of likely seen the same verdict if that incident had happened here.

Whether or not it is a good legal policy to remove the duty to retreat is of course open to debate, but people should not confuse that debate with the circumstances of the Zimmerman case. It's apples and oranges.
A jury could have concluded that Zimmerman could have retreated in safety particularly since Martin was unarmed. Even in a state where there is a duty to retreat you do not have to do so if it would put you in more danger. This usually involves a situation where someone can shoot you in the back or stab you in the back. The jury also would have had the opportunity to decide on such questions of fact as whether Zimmerman was pinned down, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.

Or think of this another way. Let's say the posture of the case were on appeal and the events took place in a duty to retreat state but the Judge had instructed the jury there was no duty to retreat. That would be error. Do you think it would be harmless error, such that it could not have made a difference to a rational trier of fact? I highly doubt it. If it were a duty to retreat state and the Judge instructed the jury that there was no duty to retreat, the verdict would probably be reversed on appeal. That's because there is a possibility that it would matter.

[broncofan]

OK, so let's take a slightly different scenario:

You're out on the street one night, and you see some guy with a flashlight walking up the street looking into cars.

Are you the aggressor in that situation? The guy hadn't broken into anyone's car yet, but you had only asked him what he was doing, and you have an interest in the well being of your property.


This scenario ignores the fact that Martin was being followed. A police officer might have reasonable suspicion to believe someone looking into cars with a flashlight is about to commit a crime, but would come nowhere near that standard for someone walking around. It's not criminal to follow someone around but it does cause the person to feel unreasonably threatened. It probably does not qualify someone as the first aggressor but it comes a lot closer than someone questioning an individual peering into car windows.

Edit: also see previous post which is my bigger point of contention. Just because there are some factual reconstructions where syg would not matter does not mean there are not also some where it would be a deciding factor. The jury can choose to believe any amalgam of facts presented in testimony they want.

[NYBURBS]

A jury could have concluded that Zimmerman could have retreated in safety particularly since Martin was unarmed. Even in a state where there is a duty to retreat you do not have to do so if it would put you in more danger. This usually involves a situation where someone can shoot you in the back or stab you in the back. The jury also would have had the opportunity to decide on such questions of fact as whether Zimmerman was pinned down, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.

Or think of this another way. Let's say the posture of the case were on appeal and the events took place in a duty to retreat state but the Judge had instructed the jury there was no duty to retreat. That would be error. Do you think it would be harmless error, such that it could not have made a difference to a rational trier of fact? I highly doubt it. If it were a duty to retreat state and the Judge instructed the jury that there was no duty to retreat, the verdict would probably be reversed on appeal. That's because there is a possibility that it would matter.

That would have required them to discount the testimony that there was an active struggle at the time, but they seem to have accepted that there was. If they believed that he could have escaped in complete safety, in a case where no gun or other dangerous weapon was involved, then that would have negated his whole claim that it was necessary for him to use deadly physical force to terminate the assault because he was pinned down and his head was being smashed.



This scenario ignores the fact that Martin was being followed. A police officer might have reasonable suspicion to believe someone looking into cars with a flashlight is about to commit a crime, but would come nowhere near that standard for someone walking around. It's not criminal to follow someone around but it does cause the person to feel unreasonably threatened. It probably does not qualify someone as the first aggressor but it comes a lot closer than someone questioning an individual peering into car windows.

Edit: also see previous post which is my bigger point of contention. Just because there are some factual reconstructions where syg would not matter does not mean there are not also some where it would be a deciding factor. The jury can choose to believe any amalgam of facts presented in testimony they want.

As you noted yourself, following someone you think is engaging in criminal activity is not per se illegal. Many, if not all, states even allow civilians to make warrantless arrests in certain circumstances (not saying that was the case with Zimmerman).

Anyway, as usual you wrote an excellent post, but I don't think that you really disagree with my original points, which were that this case mirrored more traditional self defense claims, that the SYG elements never ended up playing any real part, and that the other poster's definition of initial aggressor was pretty broad.

PS- Why isn't this in the politics section?

[broncofan]

but I don't think that you really disagree with my original points, which were that this case mirrored more traditional self defense claims, that the SYG elements never ended up playing any real part, and that the other poster's definition of initial aggressor was pretty broad.

PS- Why isn't this in the politics section?
I do agree with your original points. I haven't heard of initial aggressor being construed that broadly. One thing I will point out is that juries might not be very analytical. But they may hear an instruction such as syg or duty to retreat and it may trigger something that has an effect akin to subtly shifting the burden. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with you. Somewhat grudgingly only because the legal arguments seemed to me to betray what happened, which I thought was very wrong.

[broncofan]

Somewhat grudgingly only because the legal arguments seemed to me to betray what happened, which I thought was very wrong.
And I don't mean your legal arguments, I just mean the law of self-defense as an all or nothing justification. It probably leads to a lot of outcomes that don't quite feel right.

[giovanni_hotel]

If the option for 2nd degree murder had been on the table, or manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc., IMO Zimmerman would have been convicted and be in jail as we speak.

Many jurors said after the fact the felt Zimmerman was guilty of something, just not premeditated 1st degree murder.

It was the same mistake made in the Casey Anthony trial, she was overcharged and got off totally free.

[Stavros]

I find it hard to believe that after a long and protracted thread on the Trayvon Martin murder we are still going back over the arguments; it is not as if any new information has been revealed. I also think that the more publicity is given to Mr Zimmerman, the less likely he is to disappear from our pages. The debate on American laws, guns, and so on is important, Mr Zimmerman, contrary to what he may think of himself, is not an important public figure.

[buttslinger]

... Mr Zimmerman... is not an important public figure.

There is a wad of nerve cells in the central part of the brain about a half an inch across called the nucleus accumbens. When you eat or have sex or anything your brain associates with survival or breeding, this area of the brain is inundated with dopamine, or PLEASURE.

(from the Washington Post yesterday)

the media is the message.

The daily papers are getting smaller and less profitable because of the internet. The local news is becoming more and more like an entertainment show. I'm probably more guilty than most, if I flip over to Bill Moyers on PBS, I fall asleep, if the electricity in my house goes out, I realize how empty my life is. I have to get my .38 out and clean and oil it.

Hung Angels is exhibit A!!!!

Zimmerman is entertainment. Juicier than some TV fiction cause it's real. The Republican Debates were entertainment. 95% of America watches the Olympics on the couch with a bag of Doritos and a Big Gulp Coke.

Thankfully, Hillary has chemists developing pharmaceuticals that block this dopamine, tricking Americans into thinking Health and Education are good for them. Expect these drugs to be introduced into the water supply around ....um,...2017. USA! USA! USA!

[underdog6]

Zimmerman for president!

[trish]

Zimmerman for president!President of the Florida branch of the Trigger-Happy-Coward's-Club.

[Ben in LA]

Zimmerman for president!

I hope he runs. That'll guarantee Hillary or Elizabeth will be elected...and the GOP can start spewing their sexist comments and stop spewing their racist comments.