• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Justice System Broken

There doesn't have to be a charge though. We've all seen the idiot who walks into the rival's stadium wearing the rival's gear and proceeds to rowdily cheer for the rival team. None of this is illegal. Yet we've seen guys like that get their *** beat by the home town fans every once in a while. Especially if it's a heated rivalry. It's not illegal to call someone's mother a name. Or insult their favorite sports team. Or insinuate things about their sexual behavior. Yet all of these things start fights.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Zimmerman's story is 100% true. According to his story, he shot Martin while they were fighting. Why were they fighting? Martin jumped him. Why did Martin jump him? Zimmerman was following him. That is the instigating incident right there. I know where you're coming from arguing that following someone isn't illegal, but the dispatcher specifically told him not to follow. His decision to follow anyway, instigated the entire incident.
 
No, on several counts.

First, while it is not illegal to cheer against the home team in a heated rivalry, it is possible to do so in a way that violates the law (though you'd have to work pretty hard at it to make that the case for something as trivial as a sports rivalry). It CAN be illegal to call someone's mother a whore, depending on the circumstances. See my earlier comment about the illegality of incitement to violence. I can even quote you the relevant sections of the Ohio Revised Code, though it's only relevant in Ohio. Trust me, it's in there. Most states have similar laws.

As to Zimmerman's actions being provocative, they MAY have been. But it is what happens at the end of the following that matters, not the beginning. Following someone is not illegal. It may be the act that kicked off all of this (and for the purposes of a wrongful death suit, that may be all they need), but it's not the start of the (alleged) criminal act.

I agree that if he followed Treyvonn and started a physical confrontation, or even a verbally aggressive one, he will probably be in trouble. On the other hand, if he did get accosted by Treyonn as he returned to his truck, that will play better for self defense.

I agree that the stand your ground law probably won't fly, as it is not named the "go over there, pick a fight then stand your ground" law. However, there's a lot of assumptions in that argument. Interestingly enough, it seems like it is set up for a simple self-defense argument, rather than an argument that he had no duty to retreat.

Mike
 
I don't think the fact that he followed the guy isn't necessarily illegal is relevant. The fact is that is the instigating incident in this whole confrontation. Now, it went downhill from there quite quickly, but that was the instigating incident. Zimmerman claims he lost the guy and went back to his truck. If true, does that make a difference, I don't know. The fact is, if you instigate something, you can't use a self defense argument. That's how the law is written. If Zimmerman provoked Martin in someway and ended up killing him in the ensuing events, then that's manslaughter albeit not a very clear cut case as physically assaulting someone who was simply following you is a bit extreme.
 
It all comes down to how they met and what Zimmerman did at that meeting. I disagree that him following Martin IN AND OF ITSELF counts as 'instigating the incident', but what happens next certainly could. Either way you cut it, it was a dumb thing to do, but it probably will have more of a direct effect at the civil trial, if that happens.

Mike
 
Coronach said:
It all comes down to how they met and what Zimmerman did at that meeting. I disagree that him following Martin IN AND OF ITSELF counts as 'instigating the incident', but what happens next certainly could. Either way you cut it, it was a dumb thing to do, but it probably will have more of a direct effect at the civil trial, if that happens.

Mike
Click to expand...

I think a reasonable person might confront someone who was following them. Physically? Probably not. Verbally. Yes, I think that's a reasonable response from someone who was being followed. I think it comes down to what a reasonable person would expect. If I call your mother a whore, I can reasonably expect a negative reaction from you. Thus, I'm instigating the confrontation. If I follow someone can I reasonably expect a negative reaction? I dunno. That's up for a jury to decide I guess. It certainly has the potential to provoke someone though. I think we would both agree on that.
 
well if you take what has been presented as true including zimmermans story....... then theres absolutely no way you could argue instigation or anything other than self defense

his story is that when they were face to face martin asked him if he had some problem.... at which time zimmerman said no problem and turned to walk away....... at which time martin attacked him..... if we believe this story as true then its clearly self defense no matter how you want to misconstrue the facts

as for those thinking it should be taken to trial regardless and let a jury decide...... that is now how the legal system is designed to work..... if all the evidence points to no crime you dont still charge someone and let a jury decide..... if the system worked this way then we could all be put on trial for any reason at any time without any evidence...... the police could knock on your door tonight and charge you with a crime committed halfway around the world 2 hours prior...... of course no evidence could possibly support this....... but in your train of thought that would be for a jury to decide right?

as Ive said several times...... none of us know all the evidence that exists... we do know that most of the evidence weve been givin by the media so far has panned out to be false...... of course this doesnt seem to be stopping anyone from believing it.... if we ever hear the real evidence it may paint a totally different picture
 
I know this is somewhat off topic but could be similar to the Self-Defense law in FL and other states.

If a proposal at the Missouri State Capitol gains traction, St. Louis public transportation riders could be allowed to bring guns with them.

Read more: Lawmaker wants guns on Metro buses, trains

If this pass, now riders on the public transportation systems may think someone is going to harm him/her and decide to take matters in their own hands.

I guess we are going back to the wild wild west!
​
 
Interestingly enough, Zimmerman's legal team has publicly withdrawn from representing him. Apparently he has contacted the special prosecutor's office on his own as well as various media outlets and won't respond to any texts, calls or emails from his legal team. So they're dropping him since they can't make contact with him. Horrible decision on his part.
 
saptech said:
I know this is somewhat off topic but could be similar to the Self-Defense law in FL and other states.

If a proposal at the Missouri State Capitol gains traction, St. Louis public transportation riders could be allowed to bring guns with them.

Read more: Lawmaker wants guns on Metro buses, trains

If this pass, now riders on the public transportation systems may think someone is going to harm him/her and decide to take matters in their own hands.

I guess we are going back to the wild wild west!
​
Click to expand...

As a cop, allow me to assure you: there are lots of guns on buses, in malls, in cars and every place else there is not a metal detector and a guard to prevent access. If you think that the people who are shooting each other in the hood are leaving their guns behind when they hop the #2 bus, you're sadly mistaken.

And the "wild west" theme is played out. Every time some law comes up suggesting that people might be allowed to legally carry in some location that they couldn't before, it gets trotted out, and when nothing bad happens no one remembers the histrionics.

Mike
 
Coronach said:
If you think that the people who are shooting each other in the hood are leaving their guns behind when they hop the #2 bus, you're sadly mistaken.

And the "wild west" theme is played out. Every time some law comes up suggesting that people might be allowed to legally carry in some location that they couldn't before, it gets trotted out, and when nothing bad happens no one remembers the histrionics.
Mike
Click to expand...
I don't believe the majority of the people shooting each other in the "hood" hops the #2 or any other public transportation, that's why most are called "drive-by shootings".

I believe most laws like this and similar as the one in FL, are for the people who don't live in the "hood" but coming into the hood for whatever reasons.

St. Louis Metro officials contend that crime is not a widespread problem on the city
Click to expand...
 
I guess it's been announced that Zimmerman will be charged. It's unclear what he'll be charged with. I'm guessing manslaughter unless the special prosecutor is really politicking and want to stick him with a second degree murder rap or something similarly insane.
 
Yeah. I'm interested to see how she plans to scale that particular mountain.

I dunno. We'll see.

Mike
 
after a meeting with the black panthers, jesse jackson, and al sharpton she gave another press conference...... theyve decided to go ahead and sentence him without a trial...... since hes clearly guilty despite all evidence
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
93% of the murders involving black teens are perpetrated by black adults and while in some cases there may be vigils and the occasional protest most go by without notice, chalked up to "life in the hood". And anywhere in the U.S. if you kill someone in legitimate self defense you are not going to suffer consequences, not just Florida.

As I stated earlier, Zimmerman was directly responsible for the situation no matter whether there was an altercation or not so he should be tried. That said, concealed carry permit holders are held to a higher standard than the typical gun owner defending their home. In Texas I can be convicted of failure to render aid if it is found I was carrying at the scene of an incident that did not involve me and refused to do so. We are expected to be responsible and law abiding individuals but as with any other licensing system on the planet there are those who should not have made it through the system. Zimmerman is one of those individuals and his actions are being used as a rally cry for gun control morons all over the country as well as the race card being thrown down with undue force.

The political aspects of this are appalling, being an election year Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are all using this to push an agenda and get Obama re-elected. I find it in extremely bad taste that the Obama campaign is now selling Obama Hoodies. We need to call this for what it is, a media storm being sustained for the benefit of others, not a true cry for justice. And the justice that is being called for is "Old West Lynching" justice, with the people crying for it already convinced of guilt and not interested in the facts of the case. I have overheard many conversations where the statement was made "...he's guilty, they just need to fry his ass and get it over with..." or something very similar. This is the U.S. and guilty or not he still has a right to be tried by a jury of his peers.
Click to expand...

This is very true, you bring up a good point.
 
copestag said:
after a meeting with the black panthers, jesse jackson, and al sharpton she gave another press conference...... theyve decided to go ahead and sentence him without a trial...... since hes clearly guilty despite all evidence
Click to expand...

Hyperbole at the least. Most of the previous posts were sourced from the media, now things are being just made up.:mad:
 
I still see no way they get second degree murder. In the state of Florida, in order to convict for second degree murder the state must prove the following:

1. The victim is dead.
2. The accused killed the victim
3. The victim was killed without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

1 and 2 are obvious here. We know Martin is dead and we know Zimmerman killed him. No one disputes those points. Third point seems impossible to prove in this case. What was the act that Zimmerman committed that was "imminently dangerous"? Following Martin? That's a reach. Fighting back against someone who attacks him? That's a reach too. In order to meet the "depraved mind" standard the state must prove that Zimmerman had "ill-will, spite or malice" when he killed Martin. I have no clue how they would even come close to proving that based on the evidence we've seen. This guy could well walk because the prosecutor screwed up here. But maybe they have evidence that we haven't seen yet.
 
In order to meet the "depraved mind" standard the state must prove that Zimmerman had "ill-will, spite or malice" when he killed Martin. I have no clue how they would even come close to proving that based on the evidence we've seen. This guy could well walk because the prosecutor screwed up here. But maybe they have evidence that we haven't seen yet.
Click to expand...
Lets assume all happen to be true, now after zimmerman pulls his gun, IMO, he didn't have to shoot. He have the advantage to hold the suspect for the police, who is supposely arriving shortly during/after the shooting.

I think that should be enough to prove he intentionally shot the kid. Again IMO. Am I misunderstanding the FL law? Even if you have the jump on someone, you can still kill the person without consequences?
 
saptech said:
Lets assume all happen to be true, now after zimmerman pulls his gun, IMO, he didn't have to shoot. He have the advantage to hold the suspect for the police, who is supposely arriving shortly during/after the shooting.

I think that should be enough to prove he intentionally shot the kid. Again IMO. Am I misunderstanding the FL law? Even if you have the jump on someone, you can still kill the person without consequences?
Click to expand...


Put yourself in Zimmermanna shoes. He had been attacked by a kid who kicked his ass. They struggled over the gun at some point. Let's assume he now has Martin at gunpoint. Zimmermann is going to be on edge. If Martin so much as moves suddenly, Zimmerman might shoot him.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Put yourself in Zimmermanna shoes. He had been attacked by a kid who kicked his ass. They struggled over the gun at some point. Let's assume he now has Martin at gunpoint. Zimmermann is going to be on edge. If Martin so much as moves suddenly, Zimmerman might shoot him.
Click to expand...

This must be true, as Martin is not denying this account of events.:rolleyes:
 
OutofDate1980 said:
This must be true, as Martin is not denying this account of events.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which brings up the biggest problem with a second degree murder case. There are only two witnesses to the entire altercation and one of them is in no condition to testify. Zimmerman has a presumption of innocence. If you are going to argue that Zimmerman is a liar (as he may well be), you have to prove it. It's not enough to just insinuate that he could be lying, you've got to prove that he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom