George Zimmerman Trial

[irishpat183]

I frequently wear hoodies. I do not think this says anything about my character, perhaps my fashion sense or lack thereof, but certainly not my character. Saying a hoodie is part of the "hoodlum uniform" speaks more to your character than it does to the individuals wearing the hoodies.

No, not really. He's stating a fact. Like sagging pants, bandanas...etc. There are absolutley dress codes that shady folks follow. Not saying ALL of peopel that wear hoodies are bad, but in certain situations? It's likely the person is up to no good. Had TM been wearing a suit??? GZ never approaches. But guess what?? evil doers at night don't wear suits. They wear hoodies.

If a bunch of hoodliums are committing crimes wearing hoodies in your neighborhood, and you see a person wearing one, at night, walking around your neighborhood...what the hell woudl you think?

To me, that speaks to your naivity.

 

[BobD]

I frequently wear hoodies. I do not think this says anything about my character, perhaps my fashion sense or lack thereof, but certainly not my character. Saying a hoodie is part of the "hoodlum uniform" speaks more to your character than it does to the individuals wearing the hoodies.

Easy there buddy, saying hoodies haven't become part of the hoodlum uniform speaks more to your lack of awareness of the real world. Don't ever, even for a second pretend you know anything about my character. There are a lot of things hoodlums wear that good people also wear. One of the favorite jackets of gang bangers here in the bay area is an Oakland Raiders jacket. That doesn't mean everyone wearing one is a hoodlum, just that hoodlums like them.

 

[connor_in]

Absolutely!!! that is the point. Perhaps that is why the fight started. And, if that is the case, Zimmerman's self-defense claim goes out the window.

His knees were in Zimmerman's armpits -- and the gun was supposedly conceled in a black holster on Zimmerman's back right hip, tucked inside his pants, with a shirt and a jacket overtop, in the dark of night. First, how did Martin see that weapon and second, if he was going for it, as Zimmerman claims (because it was an excuse for him to defend himself), if Martin was on top and dominiating him as he said, how would Zimmerman get the gun out that was now pressed between his back and the ground, obscured by a jacket, shirt, pants and a holster all while having his head bashed into a sidewalk. And, when he pulled the gun, wouldn't Martin have tried to wrestle the gun away from him. I mean, he was in the dominant position and completely in control of the fight according to Zimmerman. Picture all that happening in your mind and you decide if that makes sense. To me, it makes zero sense. On top of that, his claim that he jumped on his back and spread his arms out. But, when the police arrived, Martin's arms were tucked underneith his body. That doesn't pass the smell test. So, why would Zimmerman fabricate the story that he did? I submit that he did it to make it look like Martin was the agressor and he had no choice but to shoot him. His story is simply not believable.

for good or ill,
perhaps = reasonable doubt = acquittal

 

[GoIrish41]

Like what?


And it's perfectly normal for "little pieces" to be either forgotten or embelished in the chaotic moments during a struggle for your life, no?

See post 1693, 1696 and my last post for the inconsistencies.

He didn't make up the little pieces of the story during the chaoitic moments during the struggle for his life. He embelished them after the struggle. If you think it is OK to make up pieces of the story when giving the statements, I would suggest that you are giving the defendent in a murder case an awful lot of latitude to craft the story that makes him look innocent. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that is OK.

 

[GoIrish41]

for good or ill,
perhaps = reasonable doubt = acquittal

Not arguing the verdict. I don't think that the prosecution did a good job at laying out their case. I think they could have provided a much more logical account than Zimmerman's ... and yeah, without using the word perhaps.

 

[Wild Bill]

Law enforcement has training on acting on the suspicions they have -- Zimmerman didn't.

Profiling is a mental exercise -- pursuing a "suspect" is not. It was perfectly OK for him to profile and call the cops. Everything after that, was not at all appropriate and a kid died as a result of his poor judgment. Purposely killing someone in the street is morally objectionable, especially when the person who pulled the trigger could have prevented the whole situation by calling the cops and waiting for them to arrive.

TM could have prevented the altercation by simply introducing himself, pointing to his father's girlfriend's house and saying "I live there". He unreasonably chose to attack GZ instead. Most nights, he probably gets home and brags about beating up a creepy cracker. Tragically, it didn't happen. Tragedies are not always criminal.

 

[GoIrish41]

TM could have prevented the altercation by simply introducing himself, pointing to his father's girlfriend's house and saying "I live there". He unreasonably chose to attack GZ instead. Most nights, he probably gets home and brags about beating up a creepy cracker. Tragically, it didn't happen. Tragedies are not always criminal.

How do you know he didn't try to do that? You are making a big assumption when you say he "unreasonably chose to attack GZ. You are speaking as if we all know for a fact what transpired in the moments that led up to the fight. The only thing we really DO know about those moments is that Zimmerman was advised to stand down and followed a "fvcking punk" into the darkness because he was angry and frustrated that "those *ssholes always get away."

Here's the other thing that is wrong with what you are saying. If you think there is a creepy dude following you through the neighborhood in the dark, do you want them to know where you live? Zimmerman didn't know Martin, but Martin didn't know Zimmerman either. In fact the only thing he knew about him is that he was following him even when he was trying to lose him in the darkness. Also, keep in mind that the only other person in that house that night was a 12-year-old boy waiting for his Skittles.

 

[woolybug25]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

 

[ACamp1900]

With all of the dissecting of Florida law since this whole circus began I find it odd few have even mentioned how bass-akwards it is to introduce new charges after a trial has started and evidence has been introduced…

To me, the most glaringly screwy Florida law that actually showed it’s face in this case is that one…

 

[BobD]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

If I understand the stand your ground law.....false.

He would more than likely have a civil rights trial though.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

Not a lawyer, but here is a link to what is deemed manslaughter in Florida. You can decide on point one.

Florida Crimes: Manslaughter

 

[IrishLax]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

Would be self-defense, right?

1st Amendment allows him to wear that shirt... and being offended by something never gives you the right to assault someone.

To draw a similar parallel... if someone was walking around on September 12th, 2001 with a pro-Islamic Jihad shirt and someone decided to kick their *** because their relative died in the Pentagon or Twin Towers... and instead the pro-Jihad guy defended himself and killed the attacker... it would be self-defense as long as they had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. If the guy just took a swing at them and was walking away it wouldn't be self-defense, but if he was beating the crap out of them with no end in sight it would be self-defense.

 

[Rack Em]

Would be self-defense, right?

1st Amendment allows him to wear that shirt... and being offended by something never gives you the right to assault someone.

To draw a similar parallel... if someone was walking around on September 12th, 2001 with a pro-Islamic Jihad shirt and someone decided to kick their *** because their relative died in the Pentagon or Twin Towers... and instead the pro-Jihad guy defended himself and killed the attacker... it would be self-defense as long as they had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. If the guy just took a swing at them and was walking away it wouldn't be self-defense, but if he was beating the crap out of them with no end in sight it would be self-defense.

Lax is correct. And I would know because I got a B+ in Torts. So kiss it, everyone.

You're also only able to engage in defense to the extent you reasonably believe your attacker will use. But that basically speaks to Lax's hypothetical.

 

[GoIrish41]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

He's not doing anything illegal by wearing that provocative shirt, but he is begging for a confrontation. Where I live, I'm pretty confident he'd get manslaughter at a minimum. With good lawyers on the other side, he'd get murder. Florida is apparently the Wild West of the 21st Century, so the guy walks.

Switch the race of the guy wearing a Black Panthers t-shirt, and switch the neighborhood to a white one and he's being fitted for an orange jump suit no matter what state he lives in.

 

[woolybug25]

So... as I posted earlier in this thread. I grew up with the philosophy of "You mess with the bull, you get the horn". Seems like FL has changed that to, "You mess with the bull, just shoot if he charges".

I think the law needs to be looked at, otherwise this wont be the last situation like this imo.

 

[gkIrish]

He's not doing anything illegal by wearing that provocative shirt, but he is begging for a confrontation. Where I live, I'm pretty confident he'd get manslaughter at a minimum. With good lawyers on the other side, he'd get murder. Florida is apparently the Wild West of the 21st Century, so the guy walks.

Switch the race of the guy wearing a Black Panthers t-shirt, and switch the neighborhood to a white one and he's being fitted for an orange jump suit no matter what state he lives in.

Whether something is offensive is almost always subjective. You can't go around convicting people of murder or manslaughter simply because they did something that offended another person.

If the guy wearing a provocative shirt was killed, the killer might only be convicted of voluntary manslaughter if a reasonable person would be adequately provoked by the shirt. But usually adequate provocation requires something more serious, like catching your wife in bed with another guy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Whether something is offensive is almost always subjective. You can't go around convicting people of murder or manslaughter simply because they did something that offended another person.

If the guy wearing a provocative shirt was killed, the killer might only be convicted of voluntary manslaughter if a reasonable person would be adequately provoked by the shirt. But usually adequate provocation requires something more serious, like catching your wife in bed with another guy.

I think intent would be an issue as well. If they guy did this with the intent to **** someone off or to start something, I think that becomes a harder self defense claim.

 

[BobD]

We could only hope whatever stooge did something like that, would have a misfire and get pummeled.

 

[phgreek]

He's not doing anything illegal by wearing that provocative shirt, but he is begging for a confrontation. Where I live, I'm pretty confident he'd get manslaughter at a minimum. With good lawyers on the other side, he'd get murder. Florida is apparently the Wild West of the 21st Century, so the guy walks.

Switch the race of the guy wearing a Black Panthers t-shirt, and switch the neighborhood to a white one and he's being fitted for an orange jump suit no matter what state he lives in.

...SMH. Where do you guys live? Wearing a T shirt is freedom of speech...so when is it ever OK to physically attack someone for what they say or wear...Never. Allowing for such nonsense is itself allowing for the wild west of which you speak.

 

[BobD]

...SMH. Where do you guys live? Wearing a T shirt is freedom of speech...so when is it ever OK to physically attack someone for what they say or wear...Never. Allowing for such nonsense is itself allowing for the wild west of which you speak.

I wouldn't say it's OK to physically attack someone for what they say or wear, but I could easily turn my head while he was being taught a lesson about manners.

 

[IrishLax]

He's not doing anything illegal by wearing that provocative shirt, but he is begging for a confrontation. Where I live, I'm pretty confident he'd get manslaughter at a minimum. With good lawyers on the other side, he'd get murder. Florida is apparently the Wild West of the 21st Century, so the guy walks.

Where do you live? I don't think is accurate. The only way you would convict on anything is if you could prove he went out intentionally to provoke the fight... so you would need corroborating evidence. If you had eye witness testimony saying he went up all belligerent in the guy's face yelling and screaming racist stuff you'd (likely) get manslaughter. If you had a friend come up an testify that he told him he was going to wear a shirt to provoke a fight so he could kill a n***** (or had a facebook message or text or email to that effect) he'd get murder as it proves intent.

Otherwise, the act of wearing a shirt is not enough to preclude someone from self-defense anywhere in the United States.

Switch the race of the guy wearing a Black Panthers t-shirt, and switch the neighborhood to a white one and he's being fitted for an orange jump suit no matter what state he lives in.

I really can't see it playing out that way at all. You think if a black man got jumped for nothing but wearing a Black Panthers t-shirt by a bunch of racist white guys that the black guy would be the one going to jail? Come on. The law is the law as stated above. And the white guys would be the ones on trial... for hate crimes and assault.

 

[GoIrish41]

...SMH. Where do you guys live? Wearing a T shirt is freedom of speech...so when is it ever OK to physically attack someone for what they say or wear...Never. Allowing for such nonsense is itself allowing for the wild west of which you speak.

So, it is OK to scream fire in a crowded movie house, as the old saying goes. There is nothing wrong with the word fire, but in that case you are using that word to create a reaction. That, is illegal. Walking into a bar -- no, I think it was every bar in the neighborhood -- with an offensive shirt just to provoke people is similar, in my mind. This is a guy purposefully provoking a confrontation, and then ending said confrontation by pulling a gun and shooting someone.

 

[GoIrish41]

Where do you live? I don't think is accurate. The only way you would convict on anything is if you could prove he went out intentionally to provoke the fight... so you would need corroborating evidence. If you had eye witness testimony saying he went up all belligerent in the guy's face yelling and screaming racist stuff you'd (likely) get manslaughter. If you had a friend come up an testify that he told him he was going to wear a shirt to provoke a fight so he could kill a n***** (or had a facebook message or text or email to that effect) he'd get murder as it proves intent.

I think that the point of Wooly's original question was to suggest that the person was wearing the shirt to provoke a fight. He'll correct me I'm wrong. But, given the scenario, what other reason would he have to wear it and go into every bar in a black neighborhood?

 

[phgreek]

So, it is OK to scream fire in a crowded movie house, as the old saying goes. There is nothing wrong with the word fire, but in that case you are using that word to create a reaction. That, is illegal. Walking into a bar -- no, I think it was every bar in the neighborhood -- with an offensive shirt just to provoke people is similar, in my mind. This is a guy purposefully provoking a confrontation, and then ending said confrontation by pulling a gun and shooting someone.

That is complete BS my man...nothing about what a man wears or says on its face has the impact of causing people to trample each other...there are cases where what someone says has that impact but a racial slur or a bad T shirt ain't it dude.

 

[phgreek]

I wouldn't say it's OK to physically attack someone for what they say or wear, but I could easily turn my head while he was being taught a lesson about manners.

We would agree...but in the eyes of the law, which I expect to be above all of this, you are expected to act differently than what we all think is good solid street justice...

 

[IrishLax]

So, it is OK to scream fire in a crowded movie house, as the old saying goes. There is nothing wrong with the word fire, but in that case you are using that word to create a reaction. That, is illegal. Walking into a bar -- no, I think it was every bar in the neighborhood -- with an offensive shirt just to provoke people is similar, in my mind. This is a guy purposefully provoking a confrontation, and then ending said confrontation by pulling a gun and shooting someone.

Serious question, not rhetorical... have you ever:
1. Taken courses on law.
2. Worked in anything related to law (paralegal, expert witness, etc.).

I'm curious because it seems like you have a very interesting grasp of the legal tenets involved here... and from what I understand, they aren't correct. But I could be wrong. I've only taken a handful of courses and they were all related to engineering law/ethics.

The reason why yelling fire in a movie theater is illegal is because, to paraphrase what you said, it has a bad intent and effect... and there is no other reason to do it except to endanger people.

Wearing a subjectively (this cannot be stressed enough...) offensive article of clothing is not equivalent to that. For example, if a woman walked into a mosque in Iran in shorts and a tank top they would find that HIGHLY offensive. That would not give them the right to beat the crap out of her, and she would have the right to defend herself if attacked.

The very nature of being "offended" is that it is a subjective emotion that comes from your own very personal reaction to something. In no universe does the original example -- wearing a shirt with a Confederate flag on it -- in and of itself possibly preclude someone from the right to self-defense. For the same logic as why someone wearing a pro-choice shirt with a chopped up baby on it into a church wouldn't lose the right to self-defense, etc.

 

[IrishLax]

I think that the point of Wooly's original question was to suggest that the person was wearing the shirt to provoke a fight. He'll correct me I'm wrong. But, given the scenario, what other reason would he have to wear it and go into every bar in a black neighborhood?

Yeah, but the problem is you can't prove that. There's a famous cliche... it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

All you have in wooly's scenario (and why I responded how I did to it) is a pattern of behavior. You know that he likes wearing the shirt. You know that he likes frequenting the bars. That, in and of itself, is not enough to prove that he was provoking a fight or looking for an excuse to shoot someone. All that it proves is that he is an idiot.

 

[Wild Bill]

How do you know he didn't try to do that? You are making a big assumption when you say he "unreasonably chose to attack GZ. You are speaking as if we all know for a fact what transpired in the moments that led up to the fight. The only thing we really DO know about those moments is that Zimmerman was advised to stand down and followed a "fvcking punk" into the darkness because he was angry and frustrated that "those *ssholes always get away."

Here's the other thing that is wrong with what you are saying. If you think there is a creepy dude following you through the neighborhood in the dark, do you want them to know where you live? Zimmerman didn't know Martin, but Martin didn't know Zimmerman either. In fact the only thing he knew about him is that he was following him even when he was trying to lose him in the darkness. Also, keep in mind that the only other person in that house that night was a 12-year-old boy waiting for his Skittles.

It's not a big assumption. If you completely disregard the defenseand rely solely on the evidence presented by the state, you could not reasonably conclude TM kindly introduced himself to GZ in an effort to avoid confrontation.

I assume, based on your previous posts, you really don't care about TM's response. Seems as though you believe GZ provoked the entire incident b/c he followed him, TM's response is irrelevant and GZ was not entitled to self defense b/c he aggressor. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gather. If that is your position, we simply disagree. I believe GZ was well within his rights to follow him.

If the state had provided any evidence to suggest GZ initiated the confrontation (through physical contact or threatening words), I would have given him 20 years for manslaughter. They didn't. They did nothing. It's glaringly apparent TM sympathizers do not care about law and fact. They want "justice".

 

[FLDomer]

The whole Wooley scenario has one thing that would get the Confederate Flag wearing individual in a lil trouble, and that is you are not legally allowed to have a firearm in a bar, even with a CCW (not in FL). So, I have to say in Wooley's scenario, he probably would be charged with, at the very least, manslaughter.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Under FL law, would this not be manslaughter?

A guy decides to walk into bar in a black neighborhood wearing confederate flag tshirt. He doesn't respond to any comments or looks from anyone in the bar. He goes about his business, has a drink and never responds or acknowledges his tshirt.

He does this in every bar in the black community until someone makes a heat of the moment decision and physically assaults him... then he shoots them dead.

Murder or Manslaugher? True or False

In every state he is not guilty of anything if he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of substantial physical injury.

But, if he is in a non-Stand Your Ground state, then he could have a duty to try and retreat first before shooting, if a reasonable person would have believed that such was possible.