That depends on how the shooting occurred. Given that it was a single shot to the chest, and there was apparent fighting, it could have been that Zimmerman grabbed his weapon, and in an attempt to brandish it to settle the situation, he accidentally pulled the trigger during the scuffle, firing the fatal shot.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another Shooting
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
That depends on how the shooting occurred. Given that it was a single shot to the chest, and there was apparent fighting, it could have been that Zimmerman grabbed his weapon, and in an attempt to brandish it to settle the situation, he accidentally pulled the trigger during the scuffle, firing the fatal shot.
I suspect the prosecutors are looking real hard into something they can convict him of. Unfortunately many self defense cases are just two persons words, and one of them is dead.
My beef with the whole case is that unless FL "stand your ground" law (in which MI is supposedly modeled) is entirely different than most other states. You are still not given a license to seek out confrontation. And the "Castle Doctrine" only applies to defending yourself in your vehicle, on foot when cornered, and on your own property. It certainly doesn't apply when chasing or confronting someone.
So to me there are three possibilities.
1) The Police know something we don't that hasn't been reported.
2) The police are gathering evidence and just don't have enough for the indictment they want, which may be greater than manslaughter, they may be waiting for forensic results too.
3) The Police are truly racists and want Zimmerman to be able to get away with shooting a black kid. ( I doubt this one or one reason, while there are no doubt plenty of prejudiced cops, (plenty of prejudiced people too), Cops tend to not look kindly on civilians trying to do their job. And as a rule prosecutors don't either. In most cases I suspect this attitude is stronger than most racists attitudes cops have. In other words the most racist cop out there might think he can get away with shooting some "suspicious black kid", but they don't think an ordinary joe should be able too).
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
We have way too many cases where the police are flat out wrong for all kinds of reasons. I can totally see a situation that they, the police assumed Martin was a potential burglar and got what was coming to him, since he had no ID, keep in mind the family didn't even know he was killed until more than 12 hours later and he's less than 100 feet away when he's killed. Now that it seems like a blunder on their part, they will circle the wagons, stick to their story despite them being wrong.
I do think this is a slam dunk civil rights violation case for the feds though.
Phil Smith said:
Wow! He was killed in front of his house and his Dad does not find out for 12 hours? I do think the police screwed up for sure!
I just listened to this clip:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
It was not linked with the article I posted. I don't know why. The screams and one gunshot are apparent. I don't know who they belong to. I'm not trying to take sides.
You are correct.
So he was suspicious of being suspended from school?
I only mentioned this because previously he has been described as squeaky clean, never in any trouble.
From here on out this is just general discussion, not directed specifically at Phil.
My take on it is still the same. Zimmerman chased him down and a fight commenced. Zimmerman shot him.
The tapes, from what I hear, verify this. Whether Zimmerman through the first punch or not, I don't know. But even if he didn't, it's easy to see why Martin would feel threatened and want to defend himself.
From what I see as justice, Zimmerman's actions led to the fight, and he should be brought up on some sort of charges (murder, manslaughter, criminal disregard, I don't know). He is responsible for this boys death and it didn't have to happen.
I don't know the Florida law and I'm not going to try to read and interpret it. But I don't see how the "stand your ground" applies here.
But consider, if they arrest him, they have to give him a speedy trial. If they don't have the evidence to convict he will go free and can't be tried again.
nutdog said:
I suspect the state bungled the initial investigation , and as Phil suggested a federal civil rights violation is tailor made this case.
I think is right in saying this should be a federal denial of civil rights case. I think the local police likely screwed up the initial investigation.
It is a Federal crime to willfully deprive someone of their civil rights. The law has a very broad scope, and could probably be applied in this case.
Invalid Link Removed
sloasdaylight said:
I think there is a case to be made that the actions of Zimmerman denied Martin his civil rights. I'm not a lawyer, but this statute has been used many times when local jurisdictions have failed to serve justice.
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
I think this is why Zimmerman was able to walk, there was no one to vouch for the kid because if he had community support there meaning that people that knew him and could recognize him, the police possibly would have acted differently though it seems they are kind of corrupt anyway. The compounded errors they have made are preventing them to do the right thing. Just my opinion of course.
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
That is total BS.. and that line of reasoning is one reason why people get away with things like this .. Police are just as fallible .. if not more so as everyone else because unlike Joe Blow they have a certain amount of power behind what they do and they bring their baggage along with them.. I have seen it in cops of every hue ....
The fact that this man was advised by a dispatcher to wait for police, the fact that he was an adult, was armed and was bigger than the victim all paint a very clear and concise picture of what transpired here. If you were 17 and in a strange neighborhood .. and had someone tailing you in a car .. that alone would make anyone nervous and run like hell. This is just another case of someone being murdered in cold blood WWB. That boy did not have to die and that man should be up for negligent homicide at the least. He had all the control.. He could have stayed in his car and just followed the kid if he thought he was up to no good.. The fact that he not only got out of his car but came close enough to this kid to scuffle with him... knowing in advance that he was armed and capable of ending the situation with a few shots tells me all I need to know.
All of you trying to defend this prick need your friggin heads and hearts examined. This was a cold blooded murder plain and simple. That man already had it in his head that .."this one won't get away.." This boy was guilty of nothing but walking while black.. I have seen this scenario too may times in my 56 years all across the country... For me it was pretty d@mned clear even before these tapes were released.. now it is crystal.
colcifer said:
No I don't. If federal civil charges are actually filed, those who professionally deal in the law will explain it better than I ever could.
My guess is that an argument can be made that Zimmerman committed a violation in an attempt to apprehend or detain Martin.
onosson said:
Sorry been out of the house all day.
I'm a parent as well and do the same as you. My point though is that changing a law can have unintended consequences and wind up doing more damage than good. So I think changing a law after a one off instance where it didn't work as designed is not necessarily a good idea.
I agree. I would suggest changing it because a little thought shows me that it could quite easily lead to probably undesired legal situations (which I already described), regardless of the facts of this particular case.
I'd say the same thing about that law even if I'd never heard of this case - but it was this case that brought this law to my attention.
- Status
