The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

[Mother Theresa]

You stated that the girlfriend's testimony supports Zimmerman in that it proves Trayvon instigated the confrontation with Zimmerman. The actual ABC Report, which all of the reports you have produced are based on, clearly shows ABC News paraphrasing the girlfriend as saying that Zimmerman cornered Martin and a conversation took place.

If the conversation took place as reported, it does indicate that TM initiated the confrontation.

I haven't been following the story closely in the news and I haven't read this thread, but I take issue with the suggestion that the confrontation might have been started by Trayvon Martin. Isn't it undisputed that TM was an unarmed teen walking home from the store and Zimmerman followed him continuously for quite some time, even when instructed by 911 that he should not follow him, but he continued to do so and then, according to the girlfriend, Martin called her, frightened because someone was following him, uncertain who that person was or what were his intentions, and he wondering how he could escape the guy?

That, to me, sounds like a clear case of Zimmerman starting the confrontation: big, hulking dude following a scared kid in the dark. Even if Martin did then attack Zimmerman (I have no idea whether the evidence supports that or not), I would still say Zimmerman started the confrontation by following him like that and creating such fear that Martin felt he was in danger and had to strike first to protect himself.

It's ludicrous to argue Zimmerman was justified in then shooting the kid -- in "self defense" -- because he was attacked by the kid. For christsake, how can it be self defense to track down a small defenseless victim, get so close he's terror-stricken, and then when he lashes out in fear to blast him with a hidden gun and claim you feared for your life? If it weren't so stupid and tragic I'd post a

[Tigerman]

I haven't been following the story closely in the news and I haven't read this thread, but I take issue with the suggestion that the confrontation might have been started by Trayvon Martin. Isn't it undisputed that TM was an unarmed teen walking home from the store and Zimmerman followed him continuously for quite some time, even when instructed by 911 that he should not follow him, but he continued to do so and then, according to the girlfriend, Martin called her, frightened because someone was following him, uncertain who that person was or what were his intentions, and he wondering how he could escape the guy?

That, to me, sounds like a clear case of Zimmerman starting the confrontation: big, hulking dude following a scared kid in the dark. Even if Martin did then attack Zimmerman (I have no idea whether the evidence supports that or not), I would still say Zimmerman started the confrontation by following him like that and creating such fear that Martin felt he was in danger and had to strike first to protect himself.

It's ludicrous to argue Zimmerman was justified in then shooting the kid -- in "self defense" -- because he was attacked by the kid. For christsake, how can it be self defense to track down a small defenseless victim, get so close he's terror-stricken, and then when he lashes out in fear to blast him with a hidden gun and claim you feared for your life? If it weren't so stupid and tragic I'd post a

...the person is justified in the use of deadly force ... if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself...

Florida law also allows an instigator to use deadly force in certain situations:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself unless such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he 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...

GZ is approximately 5'7" tall and is hardly what I'd call big and hulky. TM was over 6 feet tall.

[Mother Theresa]

I'm vaguely familiar with Florida's Stand YOur Ground law and I'm aware that a (the?) key question is whether, although Zimmerman may have acted like a total idiot, yahoo cowboy, his behavior may, nonetheless, have been lawful pursuant to that law.

However, I still don't see how one could possibly refer to Martin as the aggressor or suggest he initiated the confrontation, when it seems completely obvious the only reason they may have wrestled on the ground and Martin was shot to death is because Zimmerman followed him around to the point that Martin was scared he was about to be attacked. That is, it was clearly Martin defending himself and not the other way around, even if Martin threw the first punch (which I understand we don't know).

So it seems absurd to argue Zimmerman may have "reasonably believed" it was necessary to shoot Martin "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." If he wanted to prevent his own imminent death or great bodily harm, he shouldn't have followed around the unarmed kid while packing a gun and scaring the kid into defending himself.

If I were a teen walking home late at night in the dark and some weird dude started following me around, and I tried to escape him but he kept following me, and I called my girlfriend and she told me run away from him, but he kept coming after me, I can imagine that I, too, might tackle the guy and start wailing on him out of fear (if that's what happened), and in such a case -- again -- it seems absurd to refer to the followed as the aggressor and the follower as defending himself.

If Zimmerman wanted to defend himself, he should've walked away instead of harassing the poor kid literally to death.

[headhonchoII]

There is a clear lack of evidence as to what actually happened, but in most countries you would get manslaughter for a street fight in which the unarmed participant died in an altercation with an armed person. What is it they call, excessive use of force?

Take out all the other irrelevant background story and that is really what you have.

I realize the US has it's own peculiarities of course.

[Tigerman]

There is a clear lack of evidence as to what actually happened, but in most countries you would get manslaughter for a street fight in which the unarmed participant died in an altercation with an armed person. What is it they call, excessive use of force?

Take out all the other irrelevant background story and that is really what you have.

I realize the US has it's own peculiarities of course.

Not so peculiar. Its quite possible that GZ could be deemed by a jury guilty of manslaughter. This can happen if the prosecution fails to make its case for 2nd degree murder. The jury would be permitted to find GZ guilty of a lesser crime even if they disagree with the prosecutions charges re 2nd degree murder.

Also, not so peculiar, the US, like most common law jurisdictions allows the affirmative defense of self defense. If GZ can show that he acted in self defense and that the defense is available to him, he will be acquitted.

[Mother Theresa]

But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.

[Tigerman]

But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.

I like very much that we require the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those it charges with a crime are guilty of that crime.

The facts are not exactly as you have described them above. There are many possible ways that the incident might have played out, and we don't know exactly how it did.

Its possible that GZ was a jerk, and that he stalked TM, and that he wanted to cause a confrontation so that he could use his gun to kill TM. Its just as likely, however, that it didn't go down that way at all. It is possible that TM initiated the fight. If he did, then I think GZ has a pretty good argument for self defense.

You know that the state's burden is a difficult one to meet, and that by comparison, GZ's burden is easy to meet.

I think its interesting that so many are willing to characterize GZ as a really foul person and look at TM as a pure little angel. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes, and as such, it doesn't strike me as an impossibility that TM (or GZ) started the fight. If TM started the fight, I can understand him being angry, scared, annoyed... but, none of those are a valid reason to start a fight under any theory of self defense.

If GZ is guilty, its the state's responsibility to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think its going to be difficult to do so for 2nd degree murder, based on the evidence currently known (to us).

[flike]

But honestly, Tigerman, doesn't it seem a little peculiar that, in a developed nation with the world's oldest living constitution and a highly-sophisticated legal system, it's possible that it does not constitute a crime for a guy to walk down the street with a hidden gun, start following an unarmed teenager, block after block after block, to the point that the kid gets scared, a confrontation ensues, they armed man shoots the kid to death, and he is then exonerated because he claims he was acting in self-defense and feared for his life from the kid that he was following around?

I do. I find that bizarre and illogical.

You find it bizarre and illogical that such a possibility exists? hmmm. I suspect you're overstating your case. So do you think Zimmerman should be denied a trial?

[bileduct]

The facts are not exactly as you have described them above.

Seriously, how would you know?

[Tigerman]

The facts are not exactly as you have described them above.

Seriously, how would you know?

Seriously? Because certain facts are left out of that description.

Are you suggesting that the facts are exactly as MT described them?