Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[aerius]

You don't seem to get where we non Americans are coming from. My arguments aren't so much whether Blacks or Whites are unfairly treated, its that the law is structured in such a way where one person can kill another person and justify it as self defense where the other guy isn't around to present his version of events. I can justify following someone because they are "suspicious" in my subjective opinion. I can shoot them on the grounds that I thought they were reaching for a gun. Just to be on the safe side, I should clarify I thought they were a serial rapist or <insert serious crime here> suspect rather than just suspicious. If I claim the latter I need to get into a fight and start losing first. Have I missed out anything.

You better make sure that the physical evidence reasonably agrees with the version of events you choose to present in your defence at the trial, and that it meets the standards for justifiable self-defence going by the letter of the law. Also, there better not be any reliable witnesses to the events, or worse yet, video footage now that everyone has a cell phone camera. You also better hope you don't leave a "smoking gun" piece of evidence somewhere, such as no powder burns/residue on the dead guy when you claim to have shot him at point blank range.

If you're sure you can do all that, then feel free to stalking & killing people. Otherwise, you're still going to jail and/or getting your ass sued to the ground in civil court.

[Gaidin]

Seems you might need quite a bit of forensic training to be aware of the details you'd have to come up with to tell the proper story to pull off something like that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The fact that this can all too easily be used as an ad hominem doesn't bother you?

I think you've watched too many movies.

So basically to "get away with it" er I mean have a justification for following them and claiming self defence is that I thought they matched the description of <insert crime here> suspect. Now that I know that it has to be at least serial rapist level (although Zimmerman's looks suspicious was sufficient for this case), I will be sure to keep that in mind.

You better know which suspect by name and have that description memorized you also better know that they haven't been captured and be able to clearly articulate that to the investigating detective. Of course, you're glossing over the fact that these officers were actually charged with 2nd degree murder. They only got off because Diallo looked like a suspect that they were looking for by his description, his name, and where he residing and/or hanging out.

So I am sure every wannabe vigilante will be keep that in mind next time. Note to self. Can't just claim they are suspected of shoplifting. Must claim they are suspect of a greater crime. And armed of course.

Forgetting the word reasonable. That's the part that will land you in prison.

You are essentially turning it around and saying its not ok to shoot the suspect, but look, the suspect ran off (ignoring for a moment the police were in plain clothes as the time and anyone can claim to be plains cloth police). Am I to infer that somehow makes it better, or you want to change the topic to the suspect now? If its still not ok as you say, then bringing up the fact the suspect ran off may explain things, but does not justify it, no?

Like I said before the officers were charged with 2nd degree murder and got off by the skin of their teeth only because they had a great deal more information than your typical public vigilante would have. Unless we're talking about Batman.

I will be sure to quote this study saying that its easy to mistake non guns for guns as justification then. Didn't know about that. Thanks. Although the part about how the public expected a higher standard from police (who frankly should have training) might not be quite applicable to the police, but certainly is to any wannabe vigilante or any killer who wants to play the self defense card.

It's fine to expect a higher standard of police just as long as you don't expect an inhuman standard. Training doesn't remove cognitive limitations. The brain is powerful and in stressful situations that can't be replicated by training it is impossible to train things like that out.

They again have to reasonably believe this and the question will come up why they didn't call the police to deal with a serial rapist.

Correct, he didn't pull out a power tool, which would question how relevant the study is to this case. But I can also turn it around and say Diallo ran away from 4 guys in plains clothes and he had no way of knowing whether they were really plains clothes police or any other guy on the streets. He might have pulled out his wallet wanting to say just take my money and leave me alone.

Yes. That is certainly a possibility. I don't think Diallo was a bad guy or a criminal at all. I think there's a good chance he thought those four people weren't cops and I agree that this should bring into question the practice of approaching people in plain clothes with tiny badges. I'm trying to find if they had anything with large letters identifying them as police like a jacket or on their vest.

However, it is still a trained practice. Police in plain clothes assignments are instructed to approach suspects and clearly display their badge and verbally identify themselves as police. This practice is considered acceptable by the courts.

Not a problem in the scenario. Just claim you thought he was pulling out a gun. The guy is dead and no longer able to give his version of events.

Again, you need to provide reasonable facts that made you believe that he was armed and dangerous. Of course, there's the fact that you also wouldn't have a badge but are some random citizen on the street demanding someone stop and answer questions. Maybe even pointing a firearm at them.

And what is to stop me or any wannabe vigilante claiming that? Zimmerman certainly believed Martin was dangerous because... why he just looked like it and that certainly wasn't a big factor against Zimmerman

Actually, Zimmerman said Martin was suspicious. Never said he thought he was dangerous. That of course changed when the physical fight took place.

You'd have a lot of explaining to do and you likely wouldn't be able to show it was reasonable. Frankly it would be because you're not a police officer and do not have access to the same information that they do. Hell, for all you know this guy was captured ten minutes ago and yes when someone like a serial rapist is captured they send out a state wide notification to all officers notifying them of this arrest.

You don't seem to get where we non Americans are coming from. My arguments aren't so much whether Blacks or Whites are unfairly treated, its that the law is structured in such a way where one person can kill another person and justify it as self defense where the other guy isn't around to present his version of events. I can justify following someone because they are "suspicious" in my subjective opinion. I can shoot them on the grounds that I thought they were reaching for a gun. Just to be on the safe side, I should clarify I thought they were a serial rapist or <insert serious crime here> suspect rather than just suspicious. If I claim the latter I need to get into a fight and start losing first. Have I missed out anything. Oh yeah, I will quote that study how its hard for people to distinguish guns from power tools even if they guy didn't have a gun or a power tool. Just to be safe.

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents.

[Jub]

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents.

The USA is different in a worse way, I mean look at it next to most other nations with first world living standards and find one that has the same level of crime, economic imbalance, racism, systemic abuse of the lower classes, and politicians that are near unrelatable to the average citizen. How can we be expected to understand it when no other nations is as bad in the same strange ways? To my eyes as a Canadian Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and it's telling that places in the states have a need or feel a need for laws that allow one citizen to murder another for so little provocation. I guess we should just be thankful this wasn't one of those bullshit castle law cases where somebody was shot while stealing a TV or cutting through a yard.

[Justice]

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents.

The USA is different in a worse way, I mean look at it next to most other nations with first world living standards and find one that has the same level of crime, economic imbalance, racism, systemic abuse of the lower classes, and politicians that are near unrelatable to the average citizen. How can we be expected to understand it when no other nations is as bad in the same strange ways? To my eyes as a Canadian Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and it's telling that places in the states have a need or feel a need for laws that allow one citizen to murder another for so little provocation. I guess we should just be thankful this wasn't one of those bullshit castle law cases where somebody was shot while stealing a TV or cutting through a yard.

Well, in a lot of American eyes Zimmerman is guilt of at least manslaughter. I mean, I think that and I'm a gun owner myself. The problem is that there's a huge lack of firm evidence to prove a manslaughter case; you can poke holes in Zimmerman's story all day, but at the end you have to show something that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did it all. Do you have proof that he initiated the confrontation? Do you have proof that he turned it violent? Do you have proof that Martin didn't go for the gun?

Here's relevant sections from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.]

Zimmerman's attorneys could argue that, given the evidence (or lack thereof).

[Jub]

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents.

The USA is different in a worse way, I mean look at it next to most other nations with first world living standards and find one that has the same level of crime, economic imbalance, racism, systemic abuse of the lower classes, and politicians that are near unrelatable to the average citizen. How can we be expected to understand it when no other nations is as bad in the same strange ways? To my eyes as a Canadian Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and it's telling that places in the states have a need or feel a need for laws that allow one citizen to murder another for so little provocation. I guess we should just be thankful this wasn't one of those bullshit castle law cases where somebody was shot while stealing a TV or cutting through a yard.

Well, in a lot of American eyes Zimmerman is guilt of at least manslaughter. I mean, I think that and I'm a gun owner myself. The problem is that there's a huge lack of firm evidence to prove a manslaughter case; you can poke holes in Zimmerman's story all day, but at the end you have to show something that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did it all. Do you have proof that he initiated the confrontation? Do you have proof that he turned it violent? Do you have proof that Martin didn't go for the gun?

Here's relevant sections from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.]

Zimmerman's attorneys could argue that, given the evidence (or lack thereof).

In Canada he'd likely not have had that gun at all and would need to show that drawing the gun was a reasonable escalation of force. This fact is the reason why cabbies and tow truck drivers carry tools instead of weapons to defend themselves with, it's easier to explain beaning a guy with a wrench over shooting him or stabbing him with a knife. You also don't have castle and stand your ground laws in Canada so prosecutors are more likely to force you to prove that you did everything in your power to deescalate the situation before resorting to force. The laws might not be that different but the culture of the citizens and the members of the jury surely is.

[Justice]

In Canada he'd likely not have had that gun at all and would need to show that drawing the gun was a reasonable escalation of force. This fact is the reason why cabbies and tow truck drivers carry tools instead of weapons to defend themselves with, it's easier to explain beaning a guy with a wrench over shooting him or stabbing him with a knife.

Okay, sub it in a knife for a gun. Zimmerman was a law-abiding guy; assume he got the knife legally and carried in a legal way. Assuming the facts of the case don't suddenly change so that Zimmerman was already in violation of the law, you still lack evidence to nail him on a charge like this.

You also don't have castle and stand your ground laws in Canada so prosecutors are more likely to force you to prove that you did everything in your power to deescalate the situation before resorting to force. The laws might not be that different but the culture of the citizens and the members of the jury surely is.

He's given his side of the story. Sub in "knife" for "gun". What proof do you have that he acted unreasonably? Again, I understand the outrage for this. I agree with it. But this isn't a case of "stupid Americans", this is all about a complete lack of evidence to convict Zimmerman on. Telling me that Canadian citizens are simply more likely to convict someone with less evidence because he used deadly force doesn't really convince me that you have a better view of justice.

Sometimes court cases reach the wrong result for the right reasons. This was one. That's the long and short of it.

[Jub]

In Canada he'd likely not have had that gun at all and would need to show that drawing the gun was a reasonable escalation of force. This fact is the reason why cabbies and tow truck drivers carry tools instead of weapons to defend themselves with, it's easier to explain beaning a guy with a wrench over shooting him or stabbing him with a knife.

Okay, sub it in a knife for a gun. Zimmerman was a law-abiding guy; assume he got the knife legally and carried in a legal way. Assuming the facts of the case don't suddenly change so that Zimmerman was already in violation of the law, you still lack evidence to nail him on a charge like this.

Still seems unlikely given the knife laws, at least he'd have to have had the knife carried openly in a proper sheath. That means that there would be no surprise at him having a weapon. Not to mention the reduced leathality of a knif and the greater ease at defending yourself from a knife blow over a gunshot. I'd also say that he would likely have been nailed for starting the fight and failing to retreat, at no time do any witnesses say anything that makes it sound as if Zimmerman attempted to leave the scene of the fight.

You also don't have castle and stand your ground laws in Canada so prosecutors are more likely to force you to prove that you did everything in your power to deescalate the situation before resorting to force. The laws might not be that different but the culture of the citizens and the members of the jury surely is.

He's given his side of the story. Sub in "knife" for "gun". What proof do you have that he acted unreasonably? Again, I understand the outrage for this. I agree with it. But this isn't a case of "stupid Americans", this is all about a complete lack of evidence to convict Zimmerman on. Telling me that Canadian citizens are simply more likely to convict someone with less evidence because he used deadly force doesn't really convince me that you have a better view of justice.

Sometimes court cases reach the wrong result for the right reasons. This was one. That's the long and short of it.

He moved to chase a suspect after being advised not to, and made no attempt to flee during the standing flailing phase of the fight. The fact that Zimmerman had a concealed gun on him is evidence of dangerous nation of paranoid people and the fact that he felt comfortable using it is a reflection of the culture that raised him.

How is a culture that is less violent and takes a dimmer view on it one that doesn't have a better view of justice? Even in our urban centers you see less crime than a similarly sized American city with the same demographics. Besides Justice isn't about law, it's about producing a good outcome that satisfies the nation's ideals.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents.

The USA is different in a worse way, I mean look at it next to most other nations with first world living standards and find one that has the same level of crime, economic imbalance, racism, systemic abuse of the lower classes, and politicians that are near unrelatable to the average citizen. How can we be expected to understand it when no other nations is as bad in the same strange ways? To my eyes as a Canadian Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and it's telling that places in the states have a need or feel a need for laws that allow one citizen to murder another for so little provocation. I guess we should just be thankful this wasn't one of those bullshit castle law cases where somebody was shot while stealing a TV or cutting through a yard.

Agreed. The US is in serious need of a cultural and mental overhaul.

[Jub]

Agreed. The US is in serious need of a cultural and mental overhaul.

That's why I'm glad to know there are officers like you around out there that can talk about the risks you face and understand the issues from more than one angle. I won't always agree with the way law enforcement does things, or your take on how they should be done, but it's nice to be able to talk to somebody with perspective.

[Justice]

Still seems unlikely given the knife laws, at least he'd have to have had the knife carried openly in a proper sheath. That means that there would be no surprise at him having a weapon. Not to mention the reduced leathality of a knif and the greater ease at defending yourself from a knife blow over a gunshot. I'd also say that he would likely have been nailed for starting the fight and failing to retreat, at no time do any witnesses say anything that makes it sound as if Zimmerman attempted to leave the scene of the fight.

You're changing the situation. Assume he has the knife (And forgive me if I bely my dual-citizenship ignorance, but I believe he could still use an assisted opening knife, so he wouldn't technically need a sheath since the knife folds in on itself), assume the same exact events take place, with Trayvon getting knifed instead of shot. Say he goes into shock soon after and never awakens, so no death-bed confessions.

Do we know that he started the fight? There's no evidence from either side that he actually threw the first blow. He claims that Trayvon was on-top of him. Wouldn't that eliminate the possibility of leaving the scene once the fight occurs? Again, the problem is a complete lack of evidence; we have no witnesses except for the accused and the victim. Sadly, only one can deliver testimony.

If you want to claim that this wouldn't happen in Canada, fine. I'm really not disputing that because I really can't. But once it got to trial, I'm not seeing the difference, except the idea that apparently the Canadian jury might convict on less evidence. I personally would like to think they wouldn't.

You also don't have castle and stand your ground laws in Canada so prosecutors are more likely to force you to prove that you did everything in your power to deescalate the situation before resorting to force. The laws might not be that different but the culture of the citizens and the members of the jury surely is.

Given what he's claiming, what else could have done to deescalate the situation? Again, we need evidence that is simply not there. While there are certainly cultural differences, I'd like to think that Canadian citizens still value the concept of "reasonable doubt", and why that matters even if you have a hunch the guy did it. The evidence has to be there, whether you like the guy or not.

He moved to chase a suspect after being advised not to, and made no attempt to flee during the standing flailing phase of the fight. The fact that Zimmerman had a concealed gun on him is evidence of dangerous nation of paranoid people and the fact that he felt comfortable using it is a reflection of the culture that raised him.

He stopped chasing after the dispatcher told him that he "didn't need to do that". One way or another, he encountered the kid on the way back to the car. Again, we have no details of how the fight went down other than Zimmerman's claims. We have no evidence on how the fight started, so you can't simply claim he started it. We have few details about what happened other than other witnesses claiming that one was on the other.

Again, he's innocent until proven guilty. Any way you look at it, whether you think he's a saint, a scum-sucker or just a guy who got in over his head, there's not enough to get over reasonable doubt.

How is a culture that is less violent and takes a dimmer view on it one that doesn't have a better view of justice? Even in our urban centers you see less crime than a similarly sized American city with the same demographics.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anything here? My point was that you shouldn't be proud of that view, because you should always base things on evidence. Imagine if switched the races of Zimmerman and Martin, and Zimmerman got nailed with the same lack of evidence. Would you be complaining? Fuck yeah you would, and so would I.

Besides Justice isn't about law, it's about producing a good outcome that satisfies the nation's ideals.

And that good outcome has to come through a system of impartial and unbiased laws. "Producing a good outcome that satisfies the nation's ideals" is fine if you are looking to establish a set of laws, but that doesn't mean you can suddenly act outside them when you think the result is unsatisfying. Justice should be blind (Or at least have 500/20 vision in my case), so that we don't convict based on emotions. When that happens, that's not Justice. That's Vengeance. The law needs to be impartial, and sometimes that fucking blows. This is one of those times.

I'm not arguing that the United States legal system isn't fucked 7 ways to Sunday. Far from it. I'm not saying we don't need to change. But that doesn't mean we suddenly start ignoring the whole concept behind "innocent until proven guilty". I'm for that for everyone, even moronic cowboys like Zimmerman.

[Justice]

Whoops, I meant "20/500" vision. I'm not a Kryptonian or anything.

[Jub]

Still seems unlikely given the knife laws, at least he'd have to have had the knife carried openly in a proper sheath. That means that there would be no surprise at him having a weapon. Not to mention the reduced leathality of a knif and the greater ease at defending yourself from a knife blow over a gunshot. I'd also say that he would likely have been nailed for starting the fight and failing to retreat, at no time do any witnesses say anything that makes it sound as if Zimmerman attempted to leave the scene of the fight.

You're changing the situation. Assume he has the knife (And forgive me if I bely my dual-citizenship ignorance, but I believe he could still use an assisted opening knife, so he wouldn't technically need a sheath since the knife folds in on itself), assume the same exact events take place, with Trayvon getting knifed instead of shot. Say he goes into shock soon after and never awakens, so no death-bed confessions.

Do we know that he started the fight? There's no evidence from either side that he actually threw the first blow. He claims that Trayvon was on-top of him. Wouldn't that eliminate the possibility of leaving the scene once the fight occurs? Again, the problem is a complete lack of evidence; we have no witnesses except for the accused and the victim. Sadly, only one can deliver testimony.

If you want to claim that this wouldn't happen in Canada, fine. I'm really not disputing that because I really can't. But once it got to trial, I'm not seeing the difference, except the idea that apparently the Canadian jury might convict on less evidence. I personally would like to think they wouldn't.

You may use a folding blade, but it may not be, by accident or design, able to open one handed with a flick of the wrist or by any mechanical action. You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

As for what happened, Zimmerman followed him after a suggestion for dispatch not to, the fact that they can't order you not to do that is beside the point. There was a standing portion to the fight as suggested by the witnesses, so why did he not flee at that stage? It's 100% on him to disengage before things get to the point where force, let alone deadly force, is required. Did he do this?

You also don't have castle and stand your ground laws in Canada so prosecutors are more likely to force you to prove that you did everything in your power to deescalate the situation before resorting to force. The laws might not be that different but the culture of the citizens and the members of the jury surely is.

Given what he's claiming, what else could have done to deescalate the situation? Again, we need evidence that is simply not there. While there are certainly cultural differences, I'd like to think that Canadian citizens still value the concept of "reasonable doubt", and why that matters even if you have a hunch the guy did it. The evidence has to be there, whether you like the guy or not.

As I understand it, he made no attempt to disengage and if he killed Trayvon due to the fear of him going for a gun then this is again a situation that wouldn't occur in Canada. The onus is on him to prove that he tried to disengage.

He moved to chase a suspect after being advised not to, and made no attempt to flee during the standing flailing phase of the fight. The fact that Zimmerman had a concealed gun on him is evidence of dangerous nation of paranoid people and the fact that he felt comfortable using it is a reflection of the culture that raised him.

He stopped chasing after the dispatcher told him that he "didn't need to do that". One way or another, he encountered the kid on the way back to the car. Again, we have no details of how the fight went down other than Zimmerman's claims. We have no evidence on how the fight started, so you can't simply claim he started it. We have few details about what happened other than other witnesses claiming that one was on the other.

Again, he's innocent until proven guilty. Any way you look at it, whether you think he's a saint, a scum-sucker or just a guy who got in over his head, there's not enough to get over reasonable doubt.

He followed with intent to start something and based on the maps that I've seen it's unlikely that he had no other route to return to his vehicle by except for one that took him past Trayvon. Plus judging by his injuries and his claim that he had 35-40 blows rained down on him either he's full of shit or the biggest wimp ever. No reasonable person would fear for there life after sustaining minor injuries.

How is a culture that is less violent and takes a dimmer view on it one that doesn't have a better view of justice? Even in our urban centers you see less crime than a similarly sized American city with the same demographics.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anything here? My point was that you shouldn't be proud of that view, because you should always base things on evidence. Imagine if switched the races of Zimmerman and Martin, and Zimmerman got nailed with the same lack of evidence. Would you be complaining? Fuck yeah you would, and so would I.

If the races were switched we can be damned sure the police wouldn't have waited for public outcry to start the investigation, and the evidence collected needs to be viewed in that light. When a person dies you have to really look into things and sometimes you have to lean to the side of discouraging death rather than letting somebody off because the case was handled poorly by one side.

Besides Justice isn't about law, it's about producing a good outcome that satisfies the nation's ideals.

And that good outcome has to come through a system of impartial and unbiased laws. "Producing a good outcome that satisfies the nation's ideals" is fine if you are looking to establish a set of laws, but that doesn't mean you can suddenly act outside them when you think the result is unsatisfying. Justice should be blind (Or at least have 500/20 vision in my case), so that we don't convict based on emotions. When that happens, that's not Justice. That's Vengeance. The law needs to be impartial, and sometimes that fucking blows. This is one of those times.

I'm not arguing that the United States legal system isn't fucked 7 ways to Sunday. Far from it. I'm not saying we don't need to change. But that doesn't mean we suddenly start ignoring the whole concept behind "innocent until proven guilty". I'm for that for everyone, even moronic cowboys like Zimmerman.

You need to craft and uphold the laws in ways that discourage this behavior. The same wording of a law can be handled different ways by different cultures. I feel that in Canada the investigation and court case would have been handled in a way that resulted in Zimmerman doing time.

[Borgholio]

You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

Not to derail the thread too much, but you're saying I'd need a permit to carry a pocket knife or utility blade?

[Justice]

You may use a folding blade, but it may not be, by accident or design, able to open one handed with a flick of the wrist or by any mechanical action. You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

As for what happened, Zimmerman followed him after a suggestion for dispatch not to, the fact that they can't order you not to do that is beside the point. There was a standing portion to the fight as suggested by the witnesses, so why did he not flee at that stage? It's 100% on him to disengage before things get to the point where force, let alone deadly force, is required. Did he do this?

Ah, thank you. Yes, I thought it was gravity-action or centrifugal, so flippers and assisted-actions are legal. I knew about the permit (and that you can't have one in self-defense, but it's not like you couldn't argue a dozen other reasons to own one), but again I'm assuming in this situation that we've already gotten to this part rather than having simply prevented it in the first place. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about how Canada would handle it differently because, well, they wouldn't be handling it at all.

But anyways, he claims to basically been ambushed. Even beyond that, if we believe the two met in a confrontation, there's little reason for him to disengage before it became violent; there's nothing technically illegal about that. By all indications the situation turned suddenly violent, not some sort of drunken bar fight where the two have been dragged away only to get back at each other. You have to prove that he had a chance to disengage once the situation became violent. Is there evidence for that?

As I understand it, he made no attempt to disengage and if he killed Trayvon due to the fear of him going for a gun then this is again a situation that wouldn't occur in Canada. The onus is on him to prove that he tried to disengage.

Again, you have to prove that he had a chance to disengage once the violence occurred. His own claim is that he was being ground-and-pounded MMA-style; if someone is on top of you, how do you disengage from that? Do we have evidence that Trayvon didn't get on top of him?

He followed with intent to start something and based on the maps that I've seen it's unlikely that he had no other route to return to his vehicle by except for one that took him past Trayvon

Unless he was taking a rather circuitous route, there's no more direct route than back through that cuthrough. The bigger point against Zimmerman is that the idea of him being ambushed doesn't jive with where the shooting went down. However, even by Witness 8's account there's no evidence that Zimmerman's initial confrontation was violent. ("Why are you following me?"/"What are you doing here?")

Plus judging by his injuries and his claim that he had 35-40 blows rained down on him either he's full of shit or the biggest wimp ever. No reasonable person would fear for there life after sustaining minor injuries.

I think he's full of shit on the number of blows, too. However, the problem is even if the beating wasn't as brutal as he claims, he claimed that Trayvon declared his intentions and reached for his weapon. At that point, the number of blows doesn't matter. We have to have evidence that that didn't happen and sadly we don't. We just have Zimmerman's statement and nothing else to challenge it with.

If the races were switched we can be damned sure the police wouldn't have waited for public outcry to start the investigation, and the evidence collected needs to be viewed in that light. When a person dies you have to really look into things and sometimes you have to lean to the side of discouraging death rather than letting somebody off because the case was handled poorly by one side.

Given the case, I'm not sure what physical evidence you could have found that would have really hurt Zimmerman. From the autopsy, there didn't seem to be any more injuries to Trayvon other than the bullet wound. We already know the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's injuries and story, but that doesn't disprove the most critical events, nor do we have proof of him actively going against the concepts of "self-defense". To get something, you'd really need a witness there who saw how things went down from the start, who could testify against the idea that Trayvon went for the gun while making a threat. It's not enough to put doubt on Zimmerman's story, but you actually have proof for the prosecution's version.

You need to craft and uphold the laws in ways that discourage this behavior. The same wording of a law can be handled different ways by different cultures. I feel that in Canada the investigation and court case would have been handled in a way that resulted in Zimmerman doing time.

I agree that you need to put laws in place to discourage this sort of behavior. No question. I don't think, however, that given the facts of the case much would have changed if you put this anywhere else. The biggest advantage that Canada has is that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the first place as you said.

@Borgholio: Yes, from what I understand. You basically have to justify it with something other than self-defense. Depending on your choice of knife, the officer issuing the permit will decide whether you need it or not.

[aerius]

You may use a folding blade, but it may not be, by accident or design, able to open one handed with a flick of the wrist or by any mechanical action. You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

Bill C68 Section III which is now part of the Criminal Code of Canada says you're wrong. You can have an automatic opening knife provided that the button or other means to flip the blade open is not on the handle of the knife. An assisted opening knife such as this one is perfectly legal in Canada. And while concealed carry is illegal, clipping a folding knife to the inside of your pocket such that the clip itself and a bit of the handle are showing is perfectly legal, if you can see it, it's not concealed. Carrying a fixed blade knife in a quick draw sheath is also legal, provided that part of the knife is visible.

Now if you have a good lawyer you can then argue what is and isn't a weapon, for instance you could claim that a Swiss Army Knife is a tool and thus doesn't fall under the concealed carry laws, and is therefore legal for you to carry concealed in your pockets.

In practice, the "don't be a dick" rule applies. You can carry any knife that's legal to possess in Canada however you want as long as you're not a dick about it and don't piss off the cops.

[Jub]

You may use a folding blade, but it may not be, by accident or design, able to open one handed with a flick of the wrist or by any mechanical action. You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

Bill C68 Section III which is now part of the Criminal Code of Canada says you're wrong. You can have an automatic opening knife provided that the button or other means to flip the blade open is not on the handle of the knife. An assisted opening knife such as this one is perfectly legal in Canada. And while concealed carry is illegal, clipping a folding knife to the inside of your pocket such that the clip itself and a bit of the handle are showing is perfectly legal, if you can see it, it's not concealed. Carrying a fixed blade knife in a quick draw sheath is also legal, provided that part of the knife is visible.

Now if you have a good lawyer you can then argue what is and isn't a weapon, for instance you could claim that a Swiss Army Knife is a tool and thus doesn't fall under the concealed carry laws, and is therefore legal for you to carry concealed in your pockets.

In practice, the "don't be a dick" rule applies. You can carry any knife that's legal to possess in Canada however you want as long as you're not a dick about it and don't piss off the cops.

I wasn't aware that sort of knife bypassed the law, I would have assumed that sort of thing would be illegal for the same reason a butterfly knife or switchblade would be. How legal that knife would be if somebody had a mind to call you on it and how much leeway the law gives with regards to concealed carry is open for debate - unless somebody knows a case where these sorts of things come into play. In general don't be a dick is the way to go.

You also need a permit to carry a concealed knife and there are far less permits per capita for concealed weapons handed out in Canada. So this is unlikely to have happened.

Not to derail the thread too much, but you're saying I'd need a permit to carry a pocket knife or utility blade?

To carry it concealed yes, not to simply carry a legal knife. Honestly though, cops tend to get touchy about people who carry knives openly and I've known friends to get hassled by certain offices if they carried a knife.

[Jub]

@Justice: Not going to go point by point anymore because there isn't too much more to say.

Based on my limited knowledge of the case and not having been part of the Jury, I think he had a chance to disengage. There's almost no way he was ambushed, his injuries were minor, and his story leaves me no reason to believe a word he says about Trayvon going for his gun. If I was in charge of the law I'd put something in place where somebody going for your weapon isn't enough to shoot them over with the onus being on the weapon carrier to have the training and skill to keep his weapon. That way you can't shoot a man for wanting to disarm you because he fears that you might shoot him.

[Justice]

@Justice: Not going to go point by point anymore because there isn't too much more to say.

Based on my limited knowledge of the case and not having been part of the Jury, I think he had a chance to disengage. There's almost no way he was ambushed, his injuries were minor, and his story leaves me no reason to believe a word he says about Trayvon going for his gun. If I was in charge of the law I'd put something in place where somebody going for your weapon isn't enough to shoot them over with the onus being on the weapon carrier to have the training and skill to keep his weapon. That way you can't shoot a man for wanting to disarm you because he fears that you might shoot him.

That's fine. I think we've hashed over it for the most part and made our points. I'm not sure I'd change the gun part (going for someone's gun is pretty much saying "I'm going to shoot you"), but putting into practice the idea of not pursuing people deemed "suspicious" to avoid escalating the situation would be something. Not sure how you could codify that into law, but in practice having dispatchers lead with "Please do not leave your vehicle" or "Please do not pursue" could start. A few states (From what I'm told, Ohio and South Carolina) put the onus of proof for self-defense on the defender as well, which would have changed things rather drastically in this case. Of course, that change would have a lot of legal ramifications, so you'd have to tread carefully there.

[Jub]

@Justice: Not going to go point by point anymore because there isn't too much more to say.

Based on my limited knowledge of the case and not having been part of the Jury, I think he had a chance to disengage. There's almost no way he was ambushed, his injuries were minor, and his story leaves me no reason to believe a word he says about Trayvon going for his gun. If I was in charge of the law I'd put something in place where somebody going for your weapon isn't enough to shoot them over with the onus being on the weapon carrier to have the training and skill to keep his weapon. That way you can't shoot a man for wanting to disarm you because he fears that you might shoot him.

That's fine. I think we've hashed over it for the most part and made our points. I'm not sure I'd change the gun part (going for someone's gun is pretty much saying "I'm going to shoot you"), but putting into practice the idea of not pursuing people deemed "suspicious" to avoid escalating the situation would be something. Not sure how you could codify that into law, but in practice having dispatchers lead with "Please do not leave your vehicle" or "Please do not pursue" could start. A few states (From what I'm told, Ohio and South Carolina) put the onus of proof for self-defense on the defender as well, which would have changed things rather drastically in this case. Of course, that change would have a lot of legal ramifications, so you'd have to tread carefully there.

I don't think that going for a weapon is an I'm going to kill you move, at least not in all cases. I'd like the law to reflect the gun owners responsibility to be in control of his weapon, but as to how I'd do that, no clue.

I would like to see the onus of the defender to prove self defense was required rather than the assumption that the prosecution should have to prove that self defense wasn't required. It seems like the prosecution has to almost prove a negative as it stands. Again, not sure how I'd fix it.

[TimothyC]

The mainstream media also needs to get the shit sued out of them for doctoring photos and interview transcripts then presenting them as "fact".

Well, they are already going ahead with their case against NBC.

Last night’s not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial will enable the neighborhood-watch volunteer to resume his case against NBC News for the mis-editing of his widely distributed call to police. Back in December, Zimmerman sued NBC Universal Media for defamation over the botched editing, which depicted him as a hardened racial profiler.

Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

NBC Universal Media responded to the Zimmerman complaint by noting that other media outlets played up the racial angle of Zimmerman’s deadly encounter with Trayvon Martin.

The company also noted the pivotal nature of the second-degree murder case: “f Zimmerman is convicted, that fact alone will constitute substantial evidence that the destruction of his reputation is the result of his own criminal conduct, and not of the broadcasts at issue which, like countless other news reports disseminated by media entities throughout the country, reported on the underlying events.”

That formulation is now null.

According to Zimmerman attorney James Beasley, the case against NBC News was stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case. Now that’s out of the way, and Beasley is ready to proceed. “We’re going to start in earnest asap, we just have to get the stay lifted which is a ministerial act,” says Beasley, a Philadelphia lawyer, via e-mail.

When asked how the not-guilty verdict affects the civil case against NBC News, Beasley responded, “This verdict of not guilty is just that, and shows that at least this jury didn’t believe that George was a racist, profiling, or anything that the press accused George of being. That probably doesn’t get you that much but it’s simply time for us to start the case and hold accountable anyone who was irresponsible in their journalism.”

[Borgholio]

To carry it concealed yes, not to simply carry a legal knife. Honestly though, cops tend to get touchy about people who carry knives openly and I've known friends to get hassled by certain offices if they carried a knife.

While I've always understood that Canada has very restrictive gun laws compared to the US, I didn't know they were so tight on simple pocket knives too. That sounds a bit overbearing to me. But then again I'm pro-guns so it's probably just that part of me speaking.

[Jub]

To carry it concealed yes, not to simply carry a legal knife. Honestly though, cops tend to get touchy about people who carry knives openly and I've known friends to get hassled by certain offices if they carried a knife.

While I've always understood that Canada has very restrictive gun laws compared to the US, I didn't know they were so tight on simple pocket knives too. That sounds a bit overbearing to me. But then again I'm pro-guns so it's probably just that part of me speaking.

You can own a gun, but carrying it to and from the place where you'll use it outside of a case is pretty uncommon. Even paintball gear has to be barrel bagged/plugged and in a dufflebag for transport and even then I've heard of guys getting called for concealed carry because the paintbal gun was hidden in the bag... Knives are much the same and you'd best have a work/hobby related reason if you're carrying one around.

[Borgholio]

You can own a gun, but carrying it to and from the place where you'll use it outside of a case is pretty uncommon. Even paintball gear has to be barrel bagged/plugged and in a dufflebag for transport and even then I've heard of guys getting called for concealed carry because the paintbal gun was hidden in the bag... Knives are much the same and you'd best have a work/hobby related reason if you're carrying one around.

I carry a pocket knife with me everywhere I go (except for airports and federal buildings, obviously). I don't have a particular reason...just that it has come in useful from time to time when I need a blade. That sort of thing would be frowned upon in Canada?

[mr friendly guy]

You don't seem to get where we non Americans are coming from. My arguments aren't so much whether Blacks or Whites are unfairly treated, its that the law is structured in such a way where one person can kill another person and justify it as self defense where the other guy isn't around to present his version of events. I can justify following someone because they are "suspicious" in my subjective opinion. I can shoot them on the grounds that I thought they were reaching for a gun. Just to be on the safe side, I should clarify I thought they were a serial rapist or <insert serious crime here> suspect rather than just suspicious. If I claim the latter I need to get into a fight and start losing first. Have I missed out anything.

You better make sure that the physical evidence reasonably agrees with the version of events you choose to present in your defence at the trial, and that it meets the standards for justifiable self-defence going by the letter of the law. Also, there better not be any reliable witnesses to the events, or worse yet, video footage now that everyone has a cell phone camera. You also better hope you don't leave a "smoking gun" piece of evidence somewhere, such as no powder burns/residue on the dead guy when you claim to have shot him at point blank range.

If you're sure you can do all that, then feel free to stalking & killing people. Otherwise, you're still going to jail and/or getting your ass sued to the ground in civil court.

I am not going to argue the civil court thing, because as far as I can see, even if you are not guilty in a criminal court, you can still get successfully sued in a civil court for wrongful death. However I will bite for the other reasons.

1. Physical evidence - I am no expert, but I am going to guess that the evidence for a bullet going through someone from the front is going to be the same regardless of whether they were doing a "reaching" motion or holding their hands up in the air. Remember, I am not claiming the bullet isn't the wannabe vigilante's, only that it was self defense.

2. Self defence according to the letter of the law - ok that might be a problem, although if the situation worked before, therefore it should work in the same type of circumstances, with some variation between states. So I just better check the laws of the state are similar enough to the examples I gave since they occurred in other states.

3. Witnesses - Witnesses? What witnesses, I just killed the number one witness against me. Oh, you mean the other people who might have seen. I haven't followed this case as much as others, but in the other thread didn't you point out that the main witness is Zimmerman and he aren't talking. The point being its hardly that implausible even in this day and age with video footage that they only two witnesses are the killer and the person he killed. Its not like I am proposing that the wannabe vigilante takes his sweet time torturing his victim or anything like that, thus minimising the time an actual third witness can get a good look at what happened.

4. Other forensic evidence eg powder residue - why don't I just say I shot him from the range I really shot him from.

5. Last time I was in Florida was in Disneyworld, so the only "person" I will end up stalking is Mickey Mouse. For the Wannabe Vigilantes out there, that might be a little different.

Seems you might need quite a bit of forensic training to be aware of the details you'd have to come up with to tell the proper story to pull off something like that.

I am no expert, but I am not proposing something to try and fool CSI and pretend the killer didn't fire the bullet. I am proposing a person claims self defence and with the law phrased in such a way about me feeling threaten, its more of a case of convincing jurors. Especially when in America apparently claiming the guy looked like he was reaching for a gun is apparently adequate justification to empty bullets into him. Mix and match from the Zimmerman case and we have a winner.

The fact that this can all too easily be used as an ad hominem doesn't bother you?

I think you've watched too many movies.

Unfortunately Fox News and various other threads aren't bad movies. Ad hominems have been used to try and downplay accidental killings. Just to show you I am not picking on America, I will point out when UK security forces killed a Brazilian man. When they realise they fucked up and he wasn't a terrorist, the stories can out that he was an illegal immigrant running away from security forces because he mistook them for immigration. So sorry, using ad hominems doesn't just occur in movies, and the fact that this tactic doesn't bother you is quite troubling. Saying that the victim is a suspect of a particular crime (even when he wasn't) or he looked suspicious is just an ad hominem and should be treated as such.

You better know which suspect by name and have that description memorized you also better know that they haven't been captured and be able to clearly articulate that to the investigating detective. Of course, you're glossing over the fact that these officers were actually charged with 2nd degree murder. They only got off because Diallo looked like a suspect that they were looking for by his description, his name, and where he residing and/or hanging out.

I have to know he hasn't been captured. Really? Why can't I say I didn't realise he was captured at the time. Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution that I somehow know this? Or is it only reversed for my hypotheticals. Going on, I would like you for your next trick to explain how I am "glossing over the fact these officers were charged with 2nd degree murder" when my argument relies on the fact they were found NOT GUILTY in a case which I apparently glossed over.

Forgetting the word reasonable. That's the part that will land you in prison.

Like I said before the officers were charged with 2nd degree murder and got off by the skin of their teeth only because they had a great deal more information than your typical public vigilante would have. Unless we're talking about Batman.

Even over here a few years ago we get episodes of America's most wanted or unsolved mysteries (yeah I know). They show pictures of the suspect. I am not saying a wannabe vigilante will go against random guy on the street, but its quite possible they can mistake someone for the wanted person given this information.

It's fine to expect a higher standard of police just as long as you don't expect an inhuman standard. Training doesn't remove cognitive limitations. The brain is powerful and in stressful situations that can't be replicated by training it is impossible to train things like that out.

They again have to reasonably believe this and the question will come up why they didn't call the police to deal with a serial rapist.

The first point I won't contest too tightly, because it was only a less important part of the argument. The second part I am surprise you even raise that issue given the Zimmerman case. Ignoring advice to wait for police apparently doesn't hinder a self defence argument. Lets say the vigilante did call police but decided to follow them anyway. So what.

Again, you need to provide reasonable facts that made you believe that he was armed and dangerous. Of course, there's the fact that you also wouldn't have a badge but are some random citizen on the street demanding someone stop and answer questions. Maybe even pointing a firearm at them.

I can play this game just like how a few people tried it in the previous Trayvon Martin thread. Its not illegal for me to follow someone (used in that previous thread to defend Zimmerman even if they thought his actions were stupid). Its not illegal for me to ask someone to stop and answer questions (they don't have to of course). And of course after I shoot him there is no one to dispute my version of events that he looked like he was reaching for something, and I was afraid it was a firearm.

You'd have a lot of explaining to do and you likely wouldn't be able to show it was reasonable. Frankly it would be because you're not a police officer and do not have access to the same information that they do. Hell, for all you know this guy was captured ten minutes ago and yes when someone like a serial rapist is captured they send out a state wide notification to all officers notifying them of this arrest.

Wouldn't the lack of up to date information help the defense lawyer for the vigilante? No seriously, I trying to work out why this hinders their case because with a police officer who tries what I am suggesting might face the inconvenient question of how he doesn't know a suspect was taken in when state wide notification would have been, the vigilante can easily claim that was no way for him to know this because, well he is not a police officer and thus not privy to that information.

Unless police don't actually give out suspect descriptions like artist impressions etc. Please tell me you do, or my opinion of the US is just going to drop further.

I get where you're coming from. The USA is different and because it is different you do not understand it which causes you to reach for examples like the Diallo shooting or Marissa Alexander which in reality aren't anything like the Zimmerman case. Your lack of understanding then causes you to create scenarios which are also not the same but you think they are because you miss critical pieces of information. This is usually because you cite wikipedia, some article from a journalist, and not the actual court documents

1. So I guess you didn't get where I am coming from if you think I am asking a question because I don't understand the US. As oppose to I think laws / rulings which allow leeway for wannabe vigilantes are a bad idea. Because you know, if such laws appeared in my country I would totally not question them because god damn it, its my country and its not like that totally different USA.

2. Hard for me to reach for a Marissa Alexander case when I didn't even know who she is, nor quoted an example. Are you sure you are not mistaking me for someone else.

3. I don't say the Diallo case or Zimmerman case is the same, because my argument isn't contingent on ONLY one law which sucks, but on multiple laws which individually give wannabe vigilantes quite a bit of a hand, but combine makes it worse, rather than discouraging vigilante behaviour and letting police do the job.