Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[KnitShoni]

Because if the kid started the fight, it's still self-defense. And since no one can disprove that since no one saw what happened, it'd be a tad tough in court to prove otherwise.

The kid didn't start the fight. There would have been no fight if Zimmerman had done what he was told. He did not. He got out of his vehicle, gun in hand, and confronted a 17 year boy walking back to dad's house from the store.

[Ree]

Relevance?

I'm guessing the relevance is that he claimed it was self defense, and that's the reason he is not being prosecuted.

The more I read, the more questions I have about the whole "self defense" claim.

A couple of things stand out in this article.

Zimmerman is nearly twice the teenager's size, measuring at 5 feet 9 and weighing 250 pounds, according to police records.

Just how much danger was he in from a guy who was about 10 years younger and half his size?

Zimmerman has a history of being a hot head. The reason the charges in the 2005 incident were dropped, is because he made a deal.

Documents detailed how Zimmerman confronted a state agent who was arresting three bar employees on the UCF campus. WFTV learned that in 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence.

The report states that Zimmerman said 'I don't care who you are," and then he cursed and pushed the officer.

Zimmerman agreed to a pre-trial diversion program, which court records show required counseling.

I also found an article that says the residents had made several complaints about Zimmerman's tactics on the neighbourhood watch. In fact, the police chief investigating the shooting was present at a homeowner's meeting where the complaints were discussed.

I would like to think the police are being truthful and within the letter of the law when they make the claim that all the evidence points to self defense, and there is no probable cause to arrest the guy, but I have just seen way too many media reports of overt racism, corruption and coverups when it comes to the deaths of black people, especially at the hands of a white suspect.

[Greenday]

I would like to think the police are being truthful and within the letter of the law when they make the claim that all the evidence points to self defense, and there is no probable cause to arrest the guy, but I have just seen way too many media reports of overt racism, corruption and coverups when it comes to the deaths of black people, especially at the hands of a white suspect.

I just don't think this is the issue this time. I just think it's the lack of evidence. Look, he's probably guilty and he probably should be arrested and convicted, but this is how our justice system works. If you can't prove someone did something wrong, you can't convict them. And I don't see enough evidence to prove it wasn't self-defense.

[KnitShoni]

I just don't think this is the issue this time. I just think it's the lack of evidence. Look, he's probably guilty and he probably should be arrested and convicted, but this is how our justice system works. If you can't prove someone did something wrong, you can't convict them. And I don't see enough evidence to prove it wasn't self-defense.

If Zimmerman were black, and Martin white, would Zimmerman have even been let go? Would the claim of self-defense have been valid? Most likely not, because more people would have been asking how this man who outweighed this boy by 110 pounds felt he was in legitimate danger. You say "this is how our justice system works" without bothering to acknowledge the reality that it works one way for white people and another for non-white people. How many unarmed white people are shot in the back by police while they're lying on the ground in cuffs?

[Greenday]

How many unarmed white people are shot in the back by police while they're lying on the ground in cuffs?

Oh, the hilarity of making this a race issue when it's simply not. Sorry, but that's not the problem here. The problem is people here have convicted this guy without any non-circumstantial evidence and complete guesswork.

[draco664]

Possible scenario: Zimmerman was on the ground and the 17 year old was punching him in the face and slamming his head repeatedly into the ground. He thought he was being beaten to death and that it was necessary.

Boom, legal defense. And since no one can prove it happened a different way, seeing as no one saw it, it'd hold. Damnit, I should have been a lawyer.

Had you been a lawyer, you wouldn't have got much repeat business.

Look, CSI is a work of fiction, but physical evidence is used successfully in trials where there are no witnesses to put people away. Even when it's all circumstantial evidence. Go ask Scott Peterson.

[crashhelmet]

The easiest way for a prosecutor to kill a self-defense claim is to show the "defender" had intent or provoked the attacker.

So let's look at the facts we do know for absolute certain.

1) Zimmerman was told BY THE POLICE to leave the kid alone. That they were on their way.
2) Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow the kid
3) Zimmerman fought with the kid
4) Zimmerman shot and killed the kid

Even if by some chance that young Mr. Martin walked over to his car, spit in his face, and then dragged him out through the windows by his ears, Zimmerman still provoked him. Self-Defense does not stand up in this case.

Zimmerman won't be convicted of murder or even manslaughter because charges will never be brought to him. However, the family has everything they need for a wrongful death lawsuit.

The facts that people within the community have complained about this guy in the past and the leaders of the HoA AND the police chief were aware of it too, brings them into the suit as well.

it won't bring their son back, but the family will definitely have the money to move out of there and into a nicer, safer neighborhood.

[Greenday]

Look, CSI is a work of fiction, but physical evidence is used successfully in trials where there are no witnesses to put people away. Even when it's all circumstantial evidence. Go ask Scott Peterson.

I'm a forensic chemist, I know the world isn't like CSI. I'm stuck telling people that all the time. I'll go talk to Scott Peterson, then I'll go talk to the multiple who have gotten off crimes because all the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence. You are taking the exception and trying to pretend it's the norm.

[bara]

Whats circumstantial?

He admitted to following the kid when he wasn't supposed to. He admitted to shooting the kid.
Does anyone think he is going to admit to starting the altercation that ended with a dead kid?

The first two he might as well admit to. He wouldn't have been there had he not followed him. Its his gun, registered in his name and a simple ballistics could determine the bullet came from his gun.

Not knowing everything, I cant say a criminal charge would stick. A wrongful death civil (which doesnt have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt) though would easily unless something solid as diamond comes out in his favor.

[Greenday]

Not knowing everything, I cant say a criminal charge would stick. A wrongful death civil (which doesnt have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt) though would easily unless something solid as diamond comes out in his favor.

They might get some compensation because it's easily provable that he killed their son. But getting criminal charges to stick would be a lot harder.

[Gravekeeper]

This is complete bullshit. Let me quote directly from Florida's farkin' own website on self defence:

Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

and

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

You do not get to use deadly force to prevent the crime of "black kid out at 7pm" and you sure as fuck don't get to use it to defend yourself from getting socked in the face once and having a bloody nose. They cannot use self defence as an excuse to not arrest him. This is not self defence. This also occurred in public via a situation Zimmerman himself created thus he is not shielded by Florida's stand your ground laws. Legally speaking, the burden is on him to prove it was self defence. The kid is actually the one here who had full rights to self defence and no duty to retreat.

Additionally, self defence laws do not legally apply to someone who is behaving in an unlawful manner. If Zimmerman started the confrontation and the fight he cannot claim self defence.

So yes, this is bullshit and the cops should be ashamed here. Let the courts decide this.

[KnitShoni]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhoo...6#.T1_GecXZDwV

From the article: "The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help."

What is the point of having witnesses if police are just going to tell them what they witnessed?

[Andara Bledin]

Well, if Gravekeepers quote is about an actual conviction, then Zimmerman should be absolutely convictable for, at the least, aggravated battery and manslaughter. If a man armed with a hose isn't worth a self-defense plea, then a kid with bare hands doesn't even come close.

I do have to wonder why anyone is fighting on Zimmerman's side when it's patently obvious to anyone who doesn't have some bias that Zimmerman acted in bad faith and caused the death of another without provocation. The man has a known history of physical aggression, instigated the fight, and then shot and killed a minor.

The only question at this point should be what charges are going to be laid, not whether there are going to be charges at all.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

From the article: "The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help."

What is the point of having witnesses if police are just going to tell them what they witnessed?

Ugh, seriously? Also from the same article:

Witnesses told ABC News they heard Zimmerman pronounce aloud to the breathless residents watching the violence unfold "it was self-defense," and place the gun on the ground.

Professing your innocence to witnesses. Clearly the first thing you do if you didn't do anything wrong.

So we've got tampering with witnesses, lying to the public about Zimmerman's record, refusing to release 911 tapes and refusing to arrest Zimmerman.

Sounds perfectly legit so far!

[Greenday]

Legally speaking, the burden is on him to prove it was self defence. The kid is actually the one here who had full rights to self defence and no duty to retreat.

Additionally, self defence laws do not legally apply to someone who is behaving in an unlawful manner. If Zimmerman started the confrontation and the fight he cannot claim self defence.

No it's not. It's on the prosecution to prove that he went out to kill the kid. That he confronted the kid and not the other way around. And quite frankly no one has yet been able to provide a scrap of evidence to support either thing.