General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswitness says trayvon was on top, another one says he was at the bottom
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-put-top-trayvon-martin-fatal/story?id=19517236#.Uc29-n0pBcsSince there has to be no "reasonable doubt" for a conviction, this contradiction is bad for the prosecution. It would be good if both agreed that Trayvon was at the bottom in the fight.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and stalking an unarmed teenager doing nothing wrong.
I don't really see the "who was on top", etc., as determining the outcome.
We know Zimmerman grabbe his gun and took off after Martin for no reason.
Zimmerman relentlessly stalked him.
The coward had a gun.
Martin had a right to defend himself against the armed bigot.
Zimmerman shot Martin.
That's enough for me, and hopefully the jurors are not bigots and/or gun lovers.
alsame
(7,784 posts)term 'stalking' in another thread.
I agree with everything you said.
csziggy
(34,189 posts)Definition.
Does a lion repeatedly stalk a zebra? Stalking as a descriptive verb doesn't need to fit the legal requirements to be used in a discussion!
On another board after being told that 'stalking' wasn't applicable, a poster used 'chasing' - the same person who refuted 'stalking' tied themselves into knots trying to refute the use of 'chasing' to the point they changed it to 'pursuing' and began to refute the use of THAT term.
It doesn't matter what term is used - Zimmerman followed (using the term the non-emergency dispatcher used and that Zimmerman himself agreed to) Trayvon Martin and as a result Trayvon Martin wound up dead. Zimmerman instigated whatever happened and should be held responsible, IMO.
alsame
(7,784 posts)adric mutelovic
(208 posts)But since a combination of issues will come together to decide the case, we have to tackled them one by one, and who was on top (which is one key issue) is not really getting rid of "reasonable doubt" (witnesses contradicting each other).
Today's most important testimony as of the time of my post was about who was on top, and I commented about it.
uppityperson
(115,997 posts)Since afaik no one saw the beginning or middle of the fight, just the part right before the shooting, maybe they rolled over at some point? Just wondering.
And this part makes me wonder since Zimmerman was the one who had been trained in MMA. "Under cross examination by Zimmerman's lawyer, Good said he believes he saw Martin on top punching Zimmerman "MMA style," a reference to mixed martial arts."
Since Zimmy was the one trained in MMA, and the one on top was "mma style", and it was dark enough that the cones in his eyes were unable to differentiate color yet he thought he could see the difference between red and black (yes, in the dark we lose our ability to differentiate colors), it makes me suspect his version.
frylock
(34,825 posts)claims he never saw Martin throw a punch.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)he said he saw T on top wildly throwing punches, but did not see them land due to his viewing position.
uppityperson
(115,997 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)It should be based on the 911 phone call.
"You don't need to do that" - You don't need to follow the guy.
He was trolling for a confrontation, he got one. That is NOT standing your ground.
Doesn't matter if he was losing the fight. He was the one who looked for a fight.
Everything else is a distraction.
dkf
(37,305 posts)The criteria is if he was lawfully there and if he was in reasonable fear for his life.
But doesn't instigating a fight invalidate self defense?
I guess that's true for Stand Your Ground. Particularly as how the law has been written:
The Florida Stand your Ground Law passed in 2005 reads as follows:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
“in good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”
“Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.”
I'd still have to mention that Martin was standing his ground. It is possible he was in fear of his life as well.
Once in a fight, the only way to get away sometimes is if you incapacitate a.k.a. knock the other guy out. Otherwise, they would still go after you.
In a fight, there are only a few ways for things to stop.
1 - Someone else there to stop it.
2 - Someone gets knocked out.
3 - Both stops after a while.
Still, because of the law, I guess he can argue that he tried to get away from the fight after it was started.
Zimmerman could theoretically get away with this if criteria was if he was lawfully there, which he is, and if he was in reasonable fear for his life, even if he is the instigator.
That law really promotes chickenhawk vigilantism. Basically, instigating a fight and being a chump about it when they're losing.
So glad I'm not in a state with such a law.
it should be based on the totality of the evidence, whether it be the prosecution or defense, not just one piece of the puzzle.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I just have a hard time accepting that someone who instigates a fight can claim self defense.
As the Stand Your Ground law is written, it does show that as long as someone is lawfully at a place, and tries their best to get away from a fight that has already started(even if they started it).
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... qualify it as "the bigger guy"
This guy specifically IDs by clothing, size and actions....
One is not as strong as the other.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)along with all the rest of the evidence. They may decide that one witness can't be trusted while the other one can. Or they may dismiss both witnesses as unreliable.
It's not a boxing match.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Witnesses are better than nothing but I trust hard evidence more.
but each side with have their on spin on that too.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)That means the screamer was shot. And that means the screamer was Trayvon.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Wouldn't both stop with a gunshot? The shooter (GZ) is not be attacked anymore and/or the victim (TM) has been shot. The screaming stopping says nothing except the fight is over.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... critical thinking. I am so proud of us. 
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Either/both would stop screaming after a gun shot. Just think.
premium
(3,731 posts)it matters not what anyone here thinks or believes, what matters is whether or not the prosecution can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, then Zman walks, if so, then, again, Zman walks, straight to prison.
