Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Assuming he drew his gun and the fact that he wasn't a cop I'd take that as an expressed intent to use deadly force. Second, Kamikaze Sith said that the "witness account" was that he was "beating their head in" however, that's NOT what the fuck the story he posted said... Specifically:

You're right. The article didn't say that. Usually when you mount someone you don't punch them in the stomach or chest. You punch them in the face but you're right I was assuming. I apologize.

Where the hell is this "john" anyway? His side was reported back in February, and only then to a reporter. It also contradicts other reports on who was yelling for help. One has to wonder if this "John" was telling the truth, or if his side has been debunked at this point.

Uh. How do you know it was only reported to a reporter and not part of the case file? How do you know he didn't complete a witness statement?

But lets assume that it is true... It only indicated that Martin was on top at the time he saw the struggle. It would be tough to imagine how Zimmerman got his gun drawn if he was in that situation, unless he had already drawn his gun and was battling with Martin for control of it.

It is not hard to imagine at all. If your weapon is holstered on the side of your hip you arms have full access to it while being straddled.

The alternative would be that Martin provoked the incident despite the fact that he repeatedely tried to get away from the guy following him. Zimmerman's stated reason as to why he got out of his truck doesn't make any logical sense. The story he gave police was that he wanted to "check what street he was on". Firstly, its raining and he seemed to think it unusual for someone to be out walking in the rain. Second It's his neighborhood, why would he not know which street he was coming up to? Third, street signs are placed in such a way that they are visible so you don't have to get out of your vehicle to use them. It's an obvious lie. The truth is that Zimmerman was tired of this "fucking punks (or coons whichever you believe he said" and these "assholes always getting away". He had motive to attack Martin.

Yes even if the incident is simple "verbal provocation" the instigator shouldn't be able to get off scott free if they end up killing the person they provoked. Obviously, if you really feel your life is in danger you gotta do what you gotta do and use deadly force. But there should be consequences nonetheless that will force you to use that line as a very last resort, or again you fall back to the same line where you could essentially kill anyone by provoking an incident.

You're losing focus. We're attempting to determine if Zimmerman broke any laws. Specifically, do his actions meet the elements for any of the homicide crimes.

I agree to a point. Even police can be found unjustified in their use of deadly force if it is found that they unreasonably created a situation in which deadly force was necessary to remove themself from. (Like stepping in front of a moving car and then opening fire on the driver to stop from being ran over)

Was that this situation though? We do not know. Unfortunately, we only have Zimmerman's testimony to go off of what took place before they were struggling on the ground and Zimmerman (even if he is a racist) is still presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it would seem to me SVPD that in many instances cops do use whatever amount of force they feel is neccessary to stop an assailant. If they had an armed man down on the ground I don't think they'd stop until he was disarmed. Obviously Martin didn't get him disarmed, and until the danger was removed I believe he would be justified in continuing to defend himself. Unfortunately his defense of his life failed.

You're right. That is a possibility. Now prove it in such a way that you'll get a convinction in court.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Can someone clarify this neighbourhood watch thing? What's its goal? What's the legality?

Neighbourhood watch here is a service for kids who think they are in danger to contact police, so I'm kinda confused.

Basically adults of the community go out on patrol and watch for suspicious activity. If they see such activity they then report it to police. They have no enforcement powers. Observe and report is their function.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Obviously, you've never tried following someone before. It is easy to get disoriented if you aren't paying attention to the signs as you pass. If he was mid block on foot or in his vehicle he would still need to get into a position where he could read the sign for the street he was on. So no. You're flat wrong on that one.

Not in a clandestine way no. But I have had to chase escaped dogs and followed someone openly (to get places known to them, but not me). When chasing Otis, there was no need to know street names. Hell, in my home neighborhood, I could not tell you the street names for more than a hundred meters from my house, but I knew the side-street layout for over a km from my house.

I could see it if the guy was in contact with police and updating them as he went. However if he is simply following someone with the intention of causing them harm (or just being a paranoid crazy) there is no reason to need to know the street name, even if he does lose track of which street he is on. He has a map in his head, just like any long-term resident who does not have alzheimers, dementia, neuro-syphillus, various forms of amnesia, or under the influence of drugs.

It is possible they spoke with him at the scene. It is also possible he gave his explanation and then choose to remain silent.

Which is why it is understandable. But no follow through? I mean, there is a dead kid. An apparently unarmed dead kid. Unless you are pre-disposed to thinking that dead black teenager=good shoot you pretty much automatically have reasonable suspicion that this guy might be lying. So a delay to gather evidence is understandable so you have ammunition when you interrogate... but they did a piss poor job gathering evidence. We can conclude from just this that one of the following conditions (that I can think of off the top of my head, I may be missing a few) is true.

A) These officers, and in fact their superiors are systemically lazy. If this is the case, I am curious as to how they have kept their jobs.

B) They are fantastically incompetent. If this is the case, I am curious as to how they have kept their jobs

C) They are racist to the point that they are automatically pre-disposed to thinking Dead Black Teenager=Good Shoot and thus automatically took Zimmerman at his word.

D) They are low-intensity racists, and simply devalue said dead black teenager to a degree such that they do not feel particularly motivated to do their jobs, even if they do suspect Zimmerman flat out murdered the kid.

E) The Stand Your Ground statute is so powerful in FL that Self Defense is no longer an Affirmative Defense in court, but rather acts like an Alibi does, forcing the police to prove that you did NOT defend yourself (as opposed to you having to show that you did). In which case, if I ever feel the need to murder someone, I am going to do it in Florida because that shit is a criminal gold mine. Reading the statute, that is not especially clear. I suppose Case Law is required to determine that. (Note, the above is not a statement of intent, or endorsement of criminal activity. Rather, it is a sarcastic statement about the bat-shit lunacy of the law in FL)

F) Some combination of the above.

You're right. That is a possibility. Now prove it in such a way that you'll get a convinction in court.

Did they even bother to bring in a Forensics team? Do we know where the kid was shot?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not in a clandestine way no. But I have had to chase escaped dogs and followed someone openly (to get places known to them, but not me). When chasing Otis, there was no need to know street names. Hell, in my home neighborhood, I could not tell you the street names for more than a hundred meters from my house, but I knew the side-street layout for over a km from my house.

I could see it if the guy was in contact with police and updating them as he went. However if he is simply following someone with the intention of causing them harm (or just being a paranoid crazy) there is no reason to need to know the street name, even if he does lose track of which street he is on. He has a map in his head, just like any long-term resident who does not have alzheimers, dementia, neuro-syphillus, various forms of amnesia, or under the influence of drugs.

It is likely he was in contact with police dispatch and updating them as he followed Martin.

Which is why it is understandable. But no follow through? I mean, there is a dead kid. An apparently unarmed dead kid. Unless you are pre-disposed to thinking that dead black teenager=good shoot you pretty much automatically have reasonable suspicion that this guy might be lying. So a delay to gather evidence is understandable so you have ammunition when you interrogate... but they did a piss poor job gathering evidence. We can conclude from just this that one of the following conditions (that I can think of off the top of my head, I may be missing a few) is true.

Well, we know they didn't do very well identifying and interviewing witnesses but I haven't heard anything about poor evidence collection.

A) These officers, and in fact their superiors are systemically lazy. If this is the case, I am curious as to how they have kept their jobs.

B) They are fantastically incompetent. If this is the case, I am curious as to how they have kept their jobs

C) They are racist to the point that they are automatically pre-disposed to thinking Dead Black Teenager=Good Shoot and thus automatically took Zimmerman at his word.

D) They are low-intensity racists, and simply devalue said dead black teenager to a degree such that they do not feel particularly motivated to do their jobs, even if they do suspect Zimmerman flat out murdered the kid.

E) The Stand Your Ground statute is so powerful in FL that Self Defense is no longer an Affirmative Defense in court, but rather acts like an Alibi does, forcing the police to prove that you did NOT defend yourself (as opposed to you having to show that you did). In which case, if I ever feel the need to murder someone, I am going to do it in Florida because that shit is a criminal gold mine. Reading the statute, that is not especially clear. I suppose Case Law is required to determine that. (Note, the above is not a statement of intent, or endorsement of criminal activity. Rather, it is a sarcastic statement about the bat-shit lunacy of the law in FL)

F) Some combination of the above.

Sanford PD isn't a very large department. I wonder how much experience they have investigating homicides by firearms.

Did they even bother to bring in a Forensics team? Do we know where the kid was shot?

No idea.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is likely he was in contact with police dispatch and updating them as he followed Martin.

He was not, because he hung up the phone with dispatch before the following started.

That assumption is just... special.

Sanford PD isn't a very large department. I wonder how much experience they have investigating homicides by firearms.

Then they should call in consultants rather than drop the ball into a cannon and fire it at the ground.

[Kamakazie Sith]

He was not, because he hung up the phone with dispatch before the following started.

That assumption is just... special.

According to the articles I've read Zimmerman was following Martin while on the phone with dispatch. See the article posted by Mr Bean on page 1.

----------------------------------
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that."
----------------------------------

The dispatch recording makes it quite clear Zimmerman was following him while on the phone.

I'm not sure if you were trying to be a smart ass with your "special" comment but that's usually the case when neighborhood watch calls in a suspicious person. They watch and report updates to dispatch. But yeah it was an assumption based off years of field work...something I think you'd respect.

Then they should call in consultants rather than drop the ball into a cannon and fire it at the ground.

If they have no experience...yeah I agree.

[Alyrium Denryle]

From where that log cuts out:

GZ: Yeah.

PD: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

GZ: Ok.

PD: Alright sir, what is your name?

GZ: George…he ran.

PD: Alright, George – what is your last name?

GZ: Zimmerman.

PD: And George what’s the phone number you calling from?

GZ: (inaudible edit)

PD: Alright George we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officers when they get out there?

GZ: Yeah.

PD: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

GZ: (inaudible edit)

PD: Alright, do you live in the area?

GZ: Yeah, yeah…

PD: What is your apartment number?

GZ: (inaudible edit)

PD: …ok do you want to just be with them right near the mailboxes then?

GZ: Yeah, that’s fine.

PD: I’ll let them know – we will be out there – alright

GZ: Actually, actually could you – could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I at?

PD: Ok, yeah that’s no problem.

And then the hang up happens. He followed briefly and then hung up the phone and continued.

They watch and report updates to dispatch. But yeah it was an assumption based off years of field work...something I think you'd respect.

Perfectly fair. My apologies. You are still wrong... but it was a fair assumption.

[SVPD]

Following someone is not illegal, even if the police tell you not to.

That's debatable. It can be termed harrassment and stalking. Especially since the guy is carrying a gun.

It is not debatable.

Florida law 784.048 specifies that stalking must be a repeated behavior.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.

I'm aware of no evidence that Zimmerman had ever encountered Martin before, much less followed him.

Given his pattern, I think it fits. Also depends on the state, it doesn't always require repeated offenses, a single continuous incident meets the legal standard in some states.

That is not the case in Florida. More importantly, Zimmerman's "pattern" is irrelevant. It doesn't become stalking to follow one person because you followed another.

[SVPD]

A lot of the claims of racism are simply "black teenager + white shooter + no arrest = racism". This incident has sparked an explosion of personal accounts on the web of black men who have legitimately feared for their lives during what should have been very normal, routine interactions with law enforcement in this country. Out of curiosity, have you read any of them?

Not recently. However, I really don't care. Quite frankly, the personal account of a black man when encountering law enforcement is not credible evidence that he was "legitimately" fearing for his life. Never mind the fact that these are anecdotes, the fact is that a lot of blacks "fear" law enforcement because they just assume any interaction with law enforcement must be racially motivated. Where is the evidence for these, the officer's side of the story? Did things really happen that way, or did these stories get a little embellishment before appearing on the internet? If we were actually present, would we have actually seen anything that made "fear for his life" reasonable?

Anyone can post anything on the internet. It's very easy to change or even just outright invent a story on the internet. An explosion of anecdotal accounts doesn't impress me, especially given that Martin never interacted with the police in this case.

I believe that we have a long-standing cultural problem that this has brought to light, and needs to be addressed. In addition, any suggestion that a Hispanic background inoculates one against black-oriented racism strikes me as problematic, at best. Certainly goes against my (limited) sociological education.

Indeed we do. That problem is attempts to take broad, general circumstances such as "it's the South" and "it's a black teenager" and "the history of law enforcement w.r.t. black males" and use them as a justification to claim that an incident was racially motivated, either by substituting those things for the specific facts of the case, or by using them to fill in missing facts.

Those things are irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was a crime for Zimmerman to shoot Martin in those specific circumstances on that specific day, and if it is a crime, whether it's murder or manslaughter, except possibly in establishing that, if it was a crime, that it was a hate crime. We do not run criminal justice in this country by allowing introduction of attitudes like "it's the south, he must be a racist" any more than we allow "he was black, must have been a criminal."

[SVPD]

Assuming he drew his gun and the fact that he wasn't a cop I'd take that as an expressed intent to use deadly force.

Yes, if. That may or may not have happened.

Second, Kamikaze Sith said that the "witness account" was that he was "beating their head in" however, that's NOT what the fuck the story he posted said... Specifically:

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

Where the hell is this "john" anyway? His side was reported back in February, and only then to a reporter. It also contradicts other reports on who was yelling for help. One has to wonder if this "John" was telling the truth, or if his side has been debunked at this point.

Which other reports does it contradict? "One has to wonder" is basically your cute way of saying "it hasn't been debunked, but I want to imply that it has". How do you know John only talked to a reporter? Even if another witness said something different, how do we know he is right and John is wrong? Because you want it that way?

But lets assume that it is true... It only indicated that Martin was on top at the time he saw the struggle. It would be tough to imagine how Zimmerman got his gun drawn if he was in that situation, unless he had already drawn his gun and was battling with Martin for control of it.

It may be tough for you to imagine, but it's not hard for me to imagine. I can easily draw when someone is in a full mount. It's also possible that if Martin got Zimmerman down, he saw or felt the gun in the process and tried to grab it (not necessarily to shoot Zimmerman, he likely wanted to throw it away if this did happen). Zimmerman tried to stop him from taking it, and then shot him. Zimmerman would not have known that Martin wanted to throw it away or had a clean record, his only knowledge would ahve been that this guy knocked him down, was on top of him, and tried to get his gun.

The alternative would be that Martin provoked the incident despite the fact that he repeatedely tried to get away from the guy following him. Zimmerman's stated reason as to why he got out of his truck doesn't make any logical sense. The story he gave police was that he wanted to "check what street he was on". Firstly, its raining and he seemed to think it unusual for someone to be out walking in the rain. Second It's his neighborhood, why would he not know which street he was coming up to? Third, street signs are placed in such a way that they are visible so you don't have to get out of your vehicle to use them. It's an obvious lie. The truth is that Zimmerman was tired of this "fucking punks (or coons whichever you believe he said" and these "assholes always getting away". He had motive to attack Martin.

I don't know the name of every street in my neighborhood. Do you? Neighborhood is a nebulous term and means different things in different places. Street signs are not always present. This is not an "obvious lie" at all.

As for Martin "provoking the incident" and "repeatedly trying to get away" I don't know that he "repeatedly tried to get away" at all; as far as I know he just kept walking. According to his girlfriend he said he was going to "walk fast". Some stories say that Zimmerman "cornered" him but I find it hard to believe the kid really walked into a place he had no other exit from; so it's possible Zimmerman caught up, or Martin just got tired of being followed and turned to confront his pursuer.

Yes even if the incident is simple "verbal provocation" the instigator shouldn't be able to get off scott free if they end up killing the person they provoked. Obviously, if you really feel your life is in danger you gotta do what you gotta do and use deadly force. But there should be consequences nonetheless that will force you to use that line as a very last resort, or again you fall back to the same line where you could essentially kill anyone by provoking an incident.

I don't see how you get that you could kill anyone by provoking an incident. You provoking someone does not somehow automatically cause them to escalate to deadly force. How about if someone engages in verbal provocation, the other person exercises a little self-restraint? Your solution allows anyone to claim that the other person "provoked" them and then basically do whatever they want to the so-called "Aggressor".

What exactly do you mean by "provoked"? That's a very vague word.

And it would seem to me SVPD that in many instances cops do use whatever amount of force they feel is neccessary to stop an assailant.

Yes, the key word being "necessary to stop." It is not permissible for law enforcement officers to use any amount of force they damn well please, or continue beating or otherwise attacking a person who is not resisting.

If they had an armed man down on the ground I don't think they'd stop until he was disarmed.

They wouldn't stop trying to disarm him, no. You do not, however, disarm someone by beating their head in. More importantly, if a police officer has someone on the ground it's to make an arrest. Martin is not a police officer and had no reason to have Zimmerman on the ground unless Zimmerman had already in someway attacked him, or said or done something to make Martin think he was about to be attacked.

Obviously Martin didn't get him disarmed, and until the danger was removed I believe he would be justified in continuing to defend himself. Unfortunately his defense of his life failed.

Again, we don't know who was defending themself against who here. We don't even know if Martin was aware of the gun before the fight started. I have a hard time believing Martin would have gotten into a physical confrontation with a man he knew beforehand was armed.

[SVPD]

Can someone clarify this neighbourhood watch thing? What's its goal? What's the legality?

Neighborhood watch here is a service for kids who think they are in danger to contact police, so I'm kinda confused.

Mostly, it just means people watch each other's property and call the police if they see anything suspicious. It's generally pretty informal; I've never heard of anyone identifying themself as a member when calling the police, much less being a "captain". You see signs for it but I've never heard of anyone really doing much of anything organized with it. There are no "legalities" at all; it has no power at all to do anything the citizens couldn't already do on their own.

[SVPD]

From where that log cuts out:

GZ: Yeah.

PD: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

GZ: Ok.

<snip intervening portion>

PD: …ok do you want to just be with them right near the mailboxes then?

GZ: Yeah, that’s fine.

PD: I’ll let them know – we will be out there – alright

GZ: Actually, actually could you – could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I at?

PD: Ok, yeah that’s no problem.

And then the hang up happens. He followed briefly and then hung up the phone and continued.

They watch and report updates to dispatch. But yeah it was an assumption based off years of field work...something I think you'd respect.

Perfectly fair. My apologies. You are still wrong... but it was a fair assumption.

Based on that, we do not know that he only started following after the conversation. It's entirely possible he had been following the entire time and by the time he got to the point where he asks if they can call him and ask his location the location he gave before was no longer relevant.

So no, KS is not wrong. That would also explain getting out to check the street name, since he would need to tell the police where to meet him when they called.

As for the "Stand your Ground" law, it is neither a "criminal gold mine" or "batshit insane", the popularity of pretending anytihng one disagrees with is "batshit insane" around here notwithstanding. It is necessary to combat the horrendous abuse (by both prosecutors and criminals) of "duty to retreat" that occurred before it, and which really was a criminal gold mine.

[Gil Hamilton]

It seems like how the police handled the situation was so poor that if it wasn't malice, it was so incompetent that it could easily be mistaken for malice. For example, they didn't ID Martin for three days and they didn't ask around to see if anyone was missing a teenager could be incompetence on their part, but it sure as hell implies that they took it as a tacit assumption that Martin wasn't from the neighborhood. That they didn't question how an overzealous, paranoid self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who is well known for constantly calling the cops and who regularly patrolled that neighborhood would not only not know where he was, but get out of his car in the rain to look around* could be incompetence, but it certainly implies that they weren't looking to investigate Martin's death too much.

(*Note: I didn't invent this point; in one of the articles above, one of the former cops who's now part of this investigation made this point that Zimmerman, given how regularly and fastidiously he patrolled that neighborhood, would have been unlikely to not know exactly where he was and that was almost certainly a lie on Zimmerman's part in his experience)

I hope they deal with Zimmerman though. This whole situation stinks. There isn't much excuse for chasing down an unarmed kid in his own neighborhood and causing a situation that lead to the kid's death.

[Count Chocula]

I'm not sure the Stand Your Ground or "Castle Doctrine" applies in this case. As a Florida resident, it has been my understanding that if someone was attempting to carjack you, or was breaking into your house, you have the right to resist with deadly force. My CCW training addressed use of lethal force in defense but had nothing to say about Stand Your Ground when you're not at home or in your car.

I don't see how Zimmerman could use following, chasing down, then getting into an altercation with a person he suspected as an application of Stand Your Ground. Self defense, maybe. It doesn't make the situation any less shitty, and Sharpton and Farrakhan throwing gas on the fire ain't helping. I'll wait and see what FL DOJ and (maybe) federal DOJ have to say, as in leveling an indictment, before I begin to draw any conclusions.

[Count Chocula]

Post edit: Gil, the young man who was shot was NOT in his neighborhood. If I understand correctly, he was visiting the neighborhood while on suspension from his Miami high school. It's quite possible Zimmerman had never seen him before their fight, and was stereotyping based on the type and dress of the people he'd seen in that development who HAD committed crimes. I'm not justifying Zimmerman's actions - I'm very cautious about hostile encounters when I'm carrying a pistol and would not have acted as he did - just positing another theory.

[SVPD]

It seems like how the police handled the situation was so poor that if it wasn't malice, it was so incompetent that it could easily be mistaken for malice. For example, they didn't ID Martin for three days and they didn't ask around to see if anyone was missing a teenager could be incompetence on their part, but it sure as hell implies that they took it as a tacit assumption that Martin wasn't from the neighborhood. That they didn't question how an overzealous, paranoid self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who is well known for constantly calling the cops and who regularly patrolled that neighborhood would not only not know where he was, but get out of his car in the rain to look around* could be incompetence, but it certainly implies that they weren't looking to investigate Martin's death too much.

(*Note: I didn't invent this point; in one of the articles above, one of the former cops who's now part of this investigation made this point that Zimmerman, given how regularly and fastidiously he patrolled that neighborhood, would have been unlikely to not know exactly where he was and that was almost certainly a lie on Zimmerman's part in his experience)

I hope they deal with Zimmerman though. This whole situation stinks. There isn't much excuse for chasing down an unarmed kid in his own neighborhood and causing a situation that lead to the kid's death.

There does seem to be a strong case for ineptitude on the part of the police department. It seems that the entire department, from the chief on down, had no procedure to be followed in the event of a death, much less a shooting. Frankly I find it bizarre that a single officer would be able to go to a shooting scene and deal with it himself. At the very least, not treating it as a crime scene and calling the coroner should be grounds for disciplinary action.

As to your last line, "causing a situation" is not a reason to "deal with him." It's not illegal to follow someone you think is engaged in criminal activity regardless of whether they are armed, or a kid (although it's usually not a good idea). The fact that the situation that eventually resulted led to the kid's death does not make it somehow a crime to "cause a situation". Not only do we not charge people with "causing situations" but we also don't put the cart before the horse in that fashion. I think he's most likely guilty of manslaughter, but we need to arrive at that conclusion based on the events as they occured, not based on starting at the kid's death and using hindsight to work backwards.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That problem is attempts to take broad, general circumstances such as "it's the South" and "it's a black teenager" and "the history of law enforcement w.r.t. black males" and use them as a justification to claim that an incident was racially motivated, either by substituting those things for the specific facts of the case, or by using them to fill in missing facts.

....

We do not run criminal justice in this country by allowing introduction of attitudes like "it's the south, he must be a racist" any more than we allow "he was black, must have been a criminal."

Do you know what Prior Probability is? Basically, it is taking information about the past, and using it in an attempt to predict the future with a degree of uncertainty. Were I actually doing Bayesian statistics, I might for example try to get a ballpark estimate for the humidity on March 25th by taking 100 years of climate data for that day and arriving at a mean and the variance around that mean. There are also Priors that are less mathematically useful, but useful when trying to figure out how likely something is in one's head. For example, I know that the probability of a random cop (or random person, for that matter) being a racist is higher in a small town in Florida than in say... Toronto. I also know that the history of the criminal justice system and black people is not exactly stellar over and above any higher probability of black people committing crimes because of institutional and active racism. I also know that one of the officers at the scene in this case has a record of shall we say... poor judgement (to put it mildly). Do I KNOW there was racism involved? No. Is it more likely than some sort of National Average Probability? Yes.

I am not in a court of law. There are no stakes involved in my making this call. I am not required to accept only a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Instead, I can accept a "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof, which when we take everything into consideration means that the police involved in this case are incompetent/lazy morons who dropped the ball--at best.

Which other reports does it contradict? "One has to wonder" is basically your cute way of saying "it hasn't been debunked, but I want to imply that it has". How do you know John only talked to a reporter? Even if another witness said something different, how do we know he is right and John is wrong? Because you want it that way?

Read the god damn thread. Multiple other witnesses heard a Martin screaming for help and begging for his life. The police "corrected" at least one and said point blank that it was Zimmerman doing the screaming to said witness. Thus tainting the witness pool, and showing a high probability that they simply took Zimmerman's account at face value because they went about correcting the testimony of witnesses that contradicted him.

Of course, none of these witnesses need contradict. Let us assume that yes, Martin was begging for his life, and that yes, he had in fact managed to get on top of Zimmerman at some point.

One of these came first.

Sequence A)

Zimmerman follows Martin
Martin confronts Zimmerman because he wants to find out why he is being followed, or Zimmerman Confronts Martin because Zimmerman is either a racist or unstable.
At some point, gun gets drawn.
Martin begs for his life as per witness testimony, to no avail
Martin realizes he is not getting out of this alive, fights back, gets Zimmerman to the ground
Zimmerman shoots him in the struggle

Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Sequence B)
Zimmerman follows Martin
Martin confronts Zimmerman because he wants to find out why he is being followed, or Zimmerman Confronts Martin because Zimmerman is either a racist or unstable.
A physical altercation happens.
Martin gets the upper hand
Zimmerman draws gun
Martin realizes the man is armed and proceeds to surrender and begs for his life as per witness testimony, at which point he is no longer a threat
Zimmerman shoots him

Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

It may be tough for you to imagine, but it's not hard for me to imagine. I can easily draw when someone is in a full mount. It's also possible that if Martin got Zimmerman down, he saw or felt the gun in the process and tried to grab it (not necessarily to shoot Zimmerman, he likely wanted to throw it away if this did happen). Zimmerman tried to stop him from taking it, and then shot him. Zimmerman would not have known that Martin wanted to throw it away or had a clean record, his only knowledge would ahve been that this guy knocked him down, was on top of him, and tried to get his gun.

This only works if you are accepting the testimony of zimmerman and one witness to the exclusion of other witnesses who heard Martin begging for his life. Why you would do this, I cannot know for certain. However, it seems to me that there is a positive prior probability of unknown magnitude that you are bending over backwards to justify the actions of police officers. You are also making a shit ton of assumptions with no data

I don't know the name of every street in my neighborhood. Do you? Neighborhood is a nebulous term and means different things in different places. Street signs are not always present. This is not an "obvious lie" at all.

I love how you ignore... logic itself... in this one. Especially because your refutation has already been dealt with by me earlier.

You assume that he would need to know what street he is on. There is no reason for Zimmerman to need to know the street name unless he had followed this kid a considerable distance away from his native turf. He was NOT on the phone with police when physical contact with Martin was made, so he was not relaying that location.

So no, KS is not wrong. That would also explain getting out to check the street name, since he would need to tell the police where to meet him when they called.

It MIGHT. But how often--even in the rain-- do you need to get out of a car to check a street name? I dont know about you, but I have driven in torrential rain in both TX and FL, and even in rather large thunderstorms with sheets of water drenching everything, I can still read street signs just fine. Stopped, or in motion... and if you have ever been to Arlington, you will know that street signs (and everything else about the roads) can get fucked up beyond all imagination here. Eventually, the contrivances required for Zimmerman's story to be true are literally too much to be believed by a reasonable person.

As for the "Stand your Ground" law, it is neither a "criminal gold mine" or "batshit insane", the popularity of pretending anytihng one disagrees with is "batshit insane" around here notwithstanding. It is necessary to combat the horrendous abuse (by both prosecutors and criminals) of "duty to retreat" that occurred before it, and which really was a criminal gold mine.

Thank you for taking a pair of terms outside the context of their sentences and constructing a ham-fisted strawman out of them. It made my day.

[Anguirus]

There have been a few updates in the case that are of interest. I can't easily post the links now because I'm on my phone, but I can follow up later if there is any interest.

1) Zimmerman now has an attorney who has made his first statement. Interestingly enough, he made a point of declaring that he will not be employing the "stand your ground" statute in his defense, declaring that the long history of precedent in standard self-defense law will clear his client.
2) The Sanford county commissioner expressed concern that Zimmerman, who has yet to be arrested, will flee the country. Zimmerman's lawyer denies this.
3) I am still seeing contradictory reports whether Zimmerman was officially a member, let alone a captain, of a neighborhood watch organization. A self-identified friend and "fellow captain" declared on CNN that Martin would still be alive if he'd been "upfront and honest." This should go over well.
4) ThinkProgress linked to a report that the initial police description of Zimmerman at the scene was "amended" some time later to add that Zimmerman had a wet shirt and bloody nose. This is obviously causing anger, but I'm wondering, again, if our resident cops think this is VERY irregular in terms of procedure. I can certainly think it sounds dubious in terms of psychology (after the fact confirmation bias).

Finally SVPD, the sheer amount of fabrication that would be required--in terms of not only exaggeration but outright lying--of people who I have no prior reason to suspect of dishonesty, means I see no reason to doubt, means I'm not inclined to take more than my usual Internet grain of salt.

[TheHammer]

Assuming he drew his gun and the fact that he wasn't a cop I'd take that as an expressed intent to use deadly force. Second, Kamikaze Sith said that the "witness account" was that he was "beating their head in" however, that's NOT what the fuck the story he posted said... Specifically:

You're right. The article didn't say that. Usually when you mount someone you don't punch them in the stomach or chest. You punch them in the face but you're right I was assuming. I apologize.

Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms to the ground. When you add assumed details and pass it off as "eye witness" testimony that really skews the perception of what truly happened.

Where the hell is this "john" anyway? His side was reported back in February, and only then to a reporter. It also contradicts other reports on who was yelling for help. One has to wonder if this "John" was telling the truth, or if his side has been debunked at this point.

Uh. How do you know it was only reported to a reporter and not part of the case file? How do you know he didn't complete a witness statement?

I believe I made it clear that I don't know any of that. However I find it odd that its the only report that would be deemed favorable to Zimmerman and has essentially been ignored aside from the intial news report. That leads me to question its accuracy.

But lets assume that it is true... It only indicated that Martin was on top at the time he saw the struggle. It would be tough to imagine how Zimmerman got his gun drawn if he was in that situation, unless he had already drawn his gun and was battling with Martin for control of it.

It is not hard to imagine at all. If your weapon is holstered on the side of your hip you arms have full access to it while being straddled.

Ok, lets replace "tough to imagine" with "highly unlikely".

Generally speaking, when you are straddling someone you would also be pinning their arms so that they couldn't fight back. Secondly, even if he was wearing a holster the man on top's legs would generally prevent you from accessing the weapon if your arms were completely free. I find it highly unlikely that the weapon was drawn while he was on bottom. Either he drew it before that time, or he at some point got Martin off of him and drew it afterwards.

Yes even if the incident is simple "verbal provocation" the instigator shouldn't be able to get off scott free if they end up killing the person they provoked. Obviously, if you really feel your life is in danger you gotta do what you gotta do and use deadly force. But there should be consequences nonetheless that will force you to use that line as a very last resort, or again you fall back to the same line where you could essentially kill anyone by provoking an incident.

You're losing focus. We're attempting to determine if Zimmerman broke any laws. Specifically, do his actions meet the elements for any of the homicide crimes.

I'm not losing focus I was answering a separate question.

I agree to a point. Even police can be found unjustified in their use of deadly force if it is found that they unreasonably created a situation in which deadly force was necessary to remove themself from. (Like stepping in front of a moving car and then opening fire on the driver to stop from being ran over)

Was that this situation though? We do not know. Unfortunately, we only have Zimmerman's testimony to go off of what took place before they were struggling on the ground and Zimmerman (even if he is a racist) is still presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that what people are asking for are for the the opportunity to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it would seem to me SVPD that in many instances cops do use whatever amount of force they feel is neccessary to stop an assailant. If they had an armed man down on the ground I don't think they'd stop until he was disarmed. Obviously Martin didn't get him disarmed, and until the danger was removed I believe he would be justified in continuing to defend himself. Unfortunately his defense of his life failed.

You're right. That is a possibility. Now prove it in such a way that you'll get a convinction in court.

I'm not attempting to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be what a trial is for. And I believe there is certainly enough to go on to bring such a case to trial. He may well escape justice through a "stand your ground" loophole, but the family of Trayvon deserve to have this heard in court, not dismissed by a local PD with questionable motives.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you know what Prior Probability is? Basically, it is taking information about the past, and using it in an attempt to predict the future with a degree of uncertainty. Were I actually doing Bayesian statistics, I might for example try to get a ballpark estimate for the humidity on March 25th by taking 100 years of climate data for that day and arriving at a mean and the variance around that mean. There are also Priors that are less mathematically useful, but useful when trying to figure out how likely something is in one's head. For example, I know that the probability of a random cop (or random person, for that matter) being a racist is higher in a small town in Florida than in say... Toronto. I also know that the history of the criminal justice system and black people is not exactly stellar over and above any higher probability of black people committing crimes because of institutional and active racism. I also know that one of the officers at the scene in this case has a record of shall we say... poor judgement (to put it mildly). Do I KNOW there was racism involved? No. Is it more likely than some sort of National Average Probability? Yes.

I am not in a court of law. There are no stakes involved in my making this call. I am not required to accept only a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Instead, I can accept a "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof, which when we take everything into consideration means that the police involved in this case are incompetent/lazy morons who dropped the ball--at best.

I agree. Though I don't use that standard of proof. The standard I use is beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because we're talking about a matter of law.

Read the god damn thread. Multiple other witnesses heard a Martin screaming for help and begging for his life. The police "corrected" at least one and said point blank that it was Zimmerman doing the screaming to said witness. Thus tainting the witness pool, and showing a high probability that they simply took Zimmerman's account at face value because they went about correcting the testimony of witnesses that contradicted him.

And an eye witness said that it was Zimmerman screaming for help. Those other witnesses only heard the altercation. In fact, they thought the gun was fired twice. Evidence collected from the scene indicates the gun was only fired once. Source

This only works if you are accepting the testimony of zimmerman and one witness to the exclusion of other witnesses who heard Martin begging for his life. Why you would do this, I cannot know for certain. However, it seems to me that there is a positive prior probability of unknown magnitude that you are bending over backwards to justify the actions of police officers. You are also making a shit ton of assumptions with no data

Why would you exclude the testimony of an eye witness?

Haha this is comedy gold! I'm going to do an impression of you at this moment.

AD: (Sees a duck standing before him)

AD: I'm in an area where ducks can't survive, therefore, using probability this can't be a duck. It is something else.

Here's why I say that. You charge SVPD of trying to justify the actions of the police officers despite him directly saying; "There does seem to be a strong case for ineptitude on the part of the police department. It seems that the entire department, from the chief on down, had no procedure to be followed in the event of a death, much less a shooting. Frankly I find it bizarre that a single officer would be able to go to a shooting scene and deal with it himself. At the very least, not treating it as a crime scene and calling the coroner should be grounds for disciplinary action."

In addition you fail to recognize that even if video surfaces that completely justifies Zimmermans use of deadly force it still does not excuse the actions of the PD.

This would make me question your competency as a scientist but I have prior knowledge that you become emotional invested in these discussions and tend to let emotions get the better of you.

I love how you ignore... logic itself... in this one. Especially because your refutation has already been dealt with by me earlier.

You assume that he would need to know what street he is on. There is no reason for Zimmerman to need to know the street name unless he had followed this kid a considerable distance away from his native turf. He was NOT on the phone with police when physical contact with Martin was made, so he was not relaying that location.

Actually, the dispatch log you posted indicates he intended on meeting the police at a different location. It's obvious he continued to follow Martin. Even if he admits to getting out of his car to confront Martin it doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of a crime. You, as a citizen, can confront anyone you want. There is no law on the books that says you can't confront someone. I really don't understand why anyone is fixated on this issue. It doesn't answer the question whether this was justified use of force.

It MIGHT. But how often--even in the rain-- do you need to get out of a car to check a street name? I dont know about you, but I have driven in torrential rain in both TX and FL, and even in rather large thunderstorms with sheets of water drenching everything, I can still read street signs just fine. Stopped, or in motion... and if you have ever been to Arlington, you will know that street signs (and everything else about the roads) can get fucked up beyond all imagination here. Eventually, the contrivances required for Zimmerman's story to be true are literally too much to be believed by a reasonable person.

Again, you've obviously never tried to pursue someone on foot. Zimmerman stated that Martin was running. If Zimmerman hung up and decided to pursue on foot that can increase his tunnel vision. When you begin chasing someone all sorts of interesting things happen to your body. I've heard seasoned police officers have a hard time remember what street they were on when a foot pursuit begins. It takes some time for the mind to adjust to the new situation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms to the ground. When you add assumed details and pass it off as "eye witness" testimony that really skews the perception of what truly happened.

The witness stated the man on top was beating him. Not holding him down. "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said."

I believe I made it clear that I don't know any of that. However I find it odd that its the only report that would be deemed favorable to Zimmerman and has essentially been ignored aside from the intial news report. That leads me to question its accuracy.

So, you're making your own assumptions while at the same time lecturing me about making assumptions. Awesome.

Ok, lets replace "tough to imagine" with "highly unlikely".

Generally speaking, when you are straddling someone you would also be pinning their arms so that they couldn't fight back. Secondly, even if he was wearing a holster the man on top's legs would generally prevent you from accessing the weapon if your arms were completely free. I find it highly unlikely that the weapon was drawn while he was on bottom. Either he drew it before that time, or he at some point got Martin off of him and drew it afterwards.

Now you're assuming, against eye witness account, that Martin wasn't beating Zimmerman. Instead he was pinning his arms to the ground.

As for your arms free argument. That would depend on where Martin's legs were in relation to the weapon. By the way, it is actually quite easy to draw a weapon from a holster when on the bottom in the mounted position. However, don't let my experience tell you otherwise...try it yourself. Don't use a real weapon though...

I'm not attempting to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be what a trial is for. And I believe there is certainly enough to go on to bring such a case to trial. He may well escape justice through a "stand your ground" loophole, but the family of Trayvon deserve to have this heard in court, not dismissed by a local PD with questionable motives.

I'm glad they're getting that chance.

[mr friendly guy]

This might seem silly, but looking at the picture of Martin, he looks like a scrawny kid. Zimmerman by contrast is at least overweight if not already in the obese category. So in a fight, Martin would someone over power the guy such that Zimmerman was desperate enough to use a firearm? Zimmerman looks like he could crush an opponent by sitting on them.

[CarsonPalmer]

This might seem silly, but looking at the picture of Martin, he looks like a scrawny kid. Zimmerman by contrast is at least overweight if not already in the obese category. So in a fight, Martin would someone over power the guy such that Zimmerman was desperate enough to use a firearm? Zimmerman looks like he could crush an opponent by sitting on them.

A lot of the pictures of Martin seem to be when he was younger (some wingnuts like to attribute some sinister purpose to this, so that they can imagine him as a big bad thug). We do know he was a football player; even if he was kind of skinny I wouldn't be surprised if a lean high school athlete could at least temporarily get the upper hand on a fat guy with delusions of being the Punisher.

[The Yosemite Bear]

of course he was threatening him, he was trying to run so fast from Fatass that Zimmy was short of breath, had bile comming up, was slipping on the rain slicked walk and lawn, what do you mean he wasn't running, oh yeah walking in the rain can do that if your a fat ass like me, oh it must have been murder on poor Zimmy's ankles.... <this is the end of the Bear using his imagination to play satiric 'Devil's Advocate' in thsi case, now for some fresh brewed coffee with choclate. no it is diabetic safe)

[TheHammer]

Or you try to wrestle a weapon away from him or pin his arms to the ground. When you add assumed details and pass it off as "eye witness" testimony that really skews the perception of what truly happened.

The witness stated the man on top was beating him. Not holding him down. "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said."

That is a very generic statement. The witness didn't indicate he saw much other than one guy on top of the other. He saw two men in a stuggle, you usually consider the person on top to be "winning" the struggle, and thus "beating up" the other guy. That doesn't equate to your HBO boxing description of "raining blows down on Zimmerman".

I believe I made it clear that I don't know any of that. However I find it odd that its the only report that would be deemed favorable to Zimmerman and has essentially been ignored aside from the intial news report. That leads me to question its accuracy.

So, you're making your own assumptions while at the same time lecturing me about making assumptions. Awesome.

I'm not making an assumption, I'm questioing the accuracy of the report because it has not been cooberated. It has in fact been contradicted by multiple other witnesses. I also find it incredibly strange that this "John" who is the only person backing Zimmerman's side of the story hasn't been seen or heard from since that initial NEWS report. We don't have his last name, so he may as well be "anonymous". As you can see, many things to question.

What you did was pass off your own interpretation of events from an anonymous witnessas though they were eye witness testimony. There is a very stark contrast there.

Ok, lets replace "tough to imagine" with "highly unlikely".

Generally speaking, when you are straddling someone you would also be pinning their arms so that they couldn't fight back. Secondly, even if he was wearing a holster the man on top's legs would generally prevent you from accessing the weapon if your arms were completely free. I find it highly unlikely that the weapon was drawn while he was on bottom. Either he drew it before that time, or he at some point got Martin off of him and drew it afterwards.

Now you're assuming, against eye witness account, that Martin wasn't beating Zimmerman. Instead he was pinning his arms to the ground.

As for your arms free argument. That would depend on where Martin's legs were in relation to the weapon. By the way, it is actually quite easy to draw a weapon from a holster when on the bottom in the mounted position. However, don't let my experience tell you otherwise...try it yourself. Don't use a real weapon though...

There is nothing in the anonymous "eye witness account" to dispute anything I said. It simply makes logical fucking sense that if you are in a struggle with a guy with a holstered weapon you are going to be doing whatever you can to keep his hands away from that gun. Yes, obviously it would be possible that he got the gun drawn after he was on the ground, simply unlikely. Its also fucking irrelevent, so I'll drop the point.

I'm not attempting to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would be what a trial is for. And I believe there is certainly enough to go on to bring such a case to trial. He may well escape justice through a "stand your ground" loophole, but the family of Trayvon deserve to have this heard in court, not dismissed by a local PD with questionable motives.

I'm glad they're getting that chance.

Indeed

By the way, I've seen it mentioned that Zimmerman was 5'2" and Martin was 6'3", however the police report indicates that Martin was 6' even and Zimmerman was 5'9". Unfortunately that's about the only worthwhile information in the report.