SleazyRider
Member
Is profiling, then, a legitimate component of situational awareness?
Zimmerman/Martin shooting
- Thread starter ACP
- Start date
- Status
Loosedhorse
member
Nope. In a jury trial the jury and only the jury is the "finder" (trier) of fact. And the jury doesn't give us an opinon; it gives us the true word (verdict).
JRH6856
Member
The investigation will produce evidence that may be presented as factual at trial. But it is the jury (or the judge in the event of a bench trial) that will decide if that evidence is fact or not.
Didn't the affidavit say Z profiled him as a "criminal"? not that he profiled him as suspicious or fitting the description of people they suspected of break ins in the area. It seems to me the wording was a little inflammatory. To me, it seemed it was worded to seem Z had made a conclusion as to the status of Martin based on what he saw. This would provide motive as to why Z confronted then shot Martin. If that is the case and they can imply he did it based upon his race then they can pursue the civil rights case and they can show intent to build the murder case.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Again, let's focus on what can be learned here.
One lesson of recorded conversations might be to keep your "inner dialog" inner, and not verbalized, when what you say is being recorded. Find your Sergeant Joe Friday self in there somewhere and tap into it - "All we want are the facts, Ma'am."
Hearing your voice on tape in court is not something to look forward to...
One lesson of recorded conversations might be to keep your "inner dialog" inner, and not verbalized, when what you say is being recorded. Find your Sergeant Joe Friday self in there somewhere and tap into it - "All we want are the facts, Ma'am."
Hearing your voice on tape in court is not something to look forward to...
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
In retrospective, vocalizing certain perceptions to neighbors might not have been wise either.
From Miami Herald article in post 15
Loosedhorse
member
Sigh.
A. Off topic
B. Show me your research
C. Show me that a stare can ONLY mean aggression or challenge
D. Show me where I said a (hypothetical) stare could not possibly mean aggression or challenge in animals or man
E. Show me definitively that the "stare"(s) between Z and M that night were meant to be aggressive or were interpreted to be aggressive
F. Show me how we know that the "stare" reported by Z of M toward him was not actually M looking curiously at the car (and not able to see Z due to the dark interior) trying to figure out what was going on
I guess I should thank you for demonstrating how many false assumptions can be bottled into your "simple statement."
___________
Following up on an earlier point, the media here are just going crazy with the "fact" that Z "racially profiled" M, and they use the affidavit as proof--even though it does not even say that, let alone prove it.
JRH6856
Member
Calls for speculation which is prohibited in this thread.
blarby
Member
Actually, she ( the judge ) called a hearing which lead to a news conference, to tell everyone there was a conflict.
She was waiting for him to object and force recusal.
Thats not speculation- she stated as such.
You don't want ANY COI from the bench, for or against you, in this situation...you want no grounds for recourse or doubt once your client is exonerated
..as a CPA, I must keep my independece in both fact and appearence. This is a very high threashold and it requires monitoring conflicts of interest.
I assume this same concept applies in this situation. I assume this judge must recuse herself from a lot of cases. Anyway, it was the right thing for her to disclose this in the Zimmerman case.
What is the protocall for selecting a replacement judge, if that is needed?
I assume this same concept applies in this situation. I assume this judge must recuse herself from a lot of cases. Anyway, it was the right thing for her to disclose this in the Zimmerman case.
What is the protocall for selecting a replacement judge, if that is needed?
henschman
Member
This case does bring up an interesting issue that those who carry should consider: if you are carrying concealed and someone attacks you physically but without a weapon, at what point are you "sufficiently" in fear of death or serious bodily injury to draw and fire? I know it depends on a lot of things, but how long would you wait? After the first blow has been dealt? When the fight is going badly for you and you are taking a beating? When they are on top of you slamming your head into the ground? How long would you wait?
There is also the issue of what happens if the gun is revealed during the struggle, and the aggressor continues to attack. Does this change the point at which you would try to use the gun? Do you have to wait until the aggressor tries to actually grab the gun from you before you are reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury?
Of course with the Zimmerman/Trayvon case we don't really know who the aggressor was, but for the purposes of our discussion, we are assuming that the person carrying the gun is not the aggressor -- otherwise, he would obviously be breaking the law to use deadly force or any other kind of force, unless the person he attacked responds with unreasonably disproportionate force himself.
There is also the issue of what happens if the gun is revealed during the struggle, and the aggressor continues to attack. Does this change the point at which you would try to use the gun? Do you have to wait until the aggressor tries to actually grab the gun from you before you are reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury?
Of course with the Zimmerman/Trayvon case we don't really know who the aggressor was, but for the purposes of our discussion, we are assuming that the person carrying the gun is not the aggressor -- otherwise, he would obviously be breaking the law to use deadly force or any other kind of force, unless the person he attacked responds with unreasonably disproportionate force himself.
Generally speaking, one may not "draw and fire" in defense against an attack by persons without weapons* except under one of the following circumstances:
- The defender is female, and the attacker male.
- The attaker is fit, and the attacker, aged or infirm; size may enter into the equation.
- The attacker is known by the defender to be hightly proficient in martial arts.
- The defender is outnumbered.
The existence of one of those conditions does not give permission to draw and shoot. It simply provides the defender with a favorable element in his or her defense of justification. And it may not tip the balance.
*If the defender had reason to believe that the attacker was armed, that's another story.
JRH6856
Member
If one is armed, any altercation one is engaged in involves at least one gun. If it becomes a struggle for that gun, I would expect ones fear for ones life to increase exponentially.
However, if you go about armed with the idea that any physical altercation could be life threatening because they might take your gun and therefore you have to use the gun to end the altercation before that happens, you may find yourself on the wrong side of the law.
Only you know your physical capabilities, and only you can gauge when the insufficiency of those capabilities places you in imminent fear of death. There is no formula that can be applied. All you can do is do what is necessary to survive and then articulate a reasonable justification for your actions.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Not sure in Florida. In many jurisdictions, a supervisory judge will appoint a new trial judge.
Shoobee
member
MicroT that is also what happened with Anthony in Florida, where the supervising judge took on her case himself.
Shoobee
member
I have called the dispatcher ("911") enough times to know that what they want to know is "what do you see happening" in order to determine if a crime is in progress or has been committed.
Youre exactly right, the nonrelevant muttering is not only unnecessary but potentially damaging to yourself, since these calls are always recorded.
"Profiling" is always a temptation for everyone, as in "this guy looks suspicious."
If you stick to facts that you have actually eye-witnessed, you don't fall into that trap yourself.
SHoobee said:
Youre exactly right, the nonrelevant muttering is not only unnecessary but potentially damaging to yourself, since these calls are always recorded.
"Profiling" is always a temptation for everyone, as in "this guy looks suspicious."
If you stick to facts that you have actually eye-witnessed, you don't fall into that trap yourself.
That is good advice. Zimmerman did not follow this and he is paying the price now.
Youre exactly right, the nonrelevant muttering is not only unnecessary but potentially damaging to yourself, since these calls are always recorded.
"Profiling" is always a temptation for everyone, as in "this guy looks suspicious."
If you stick to facts that you have actually eye-witnessed, you don't fall into that trap yourself.
That is good advice. Zimmerman did not follow this and he is paying the price now.
JRH6856
Member
Thanks, Shoobee. I thought I remembered that but I wasn't sure. The current Zimmerman case judge only has a year and a half experience on the bench and was a practicing civil trial lawyer. I believe her only criminal law experience prior to election was when she worked in the State Attorney's office, but I don't know in what capacity.
This will probably be an extremely high profile trial and might be better served with a more experienced judge on the bench.
I don't think it mattered what Zimmerman did. Obviously the facts don't matter to plenty of people and the media as well. If you read police logs there's plenty of calls about "suspicious people" in them. A lot of those calls lead to valid arrests, stopping criminal activity. If I see a guy with a ski mask and a giant black duffel bag walking into a bank, I would most likely "profile" that guy as a bank robber and call the police.
MuleRyder
Member
If this is one's mindset, then maybe it might be a good idea not to go about armed...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
