General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
From the Miami Herald:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carrying-loaded.html<snip>
Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:
1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.
2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.
3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.
4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.
5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.
6. The teen was not carrying a gun.
7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.
8. The teen was carrying candy.
9. The teen was not committing any crime.
10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.
11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.
12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.
13. The man shot the teen with his gun.
14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.
15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.
16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.
17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.
18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.
19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.
20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
trumad
(41,692 posts)The kid dressed like a hipster. Well dressed young skinny teenage kid.
Did not look menacing in anyway.
Put the same clothes on a white kid and nothing would have happened.
If he gets acquitted ---I might riot!
mountain grammy
(28,660 posts)
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)HE WAS CARRYING A LOADED WEAPON, and he knew better after years of LE classes and Neighborhood watch training than to act as an NW guy in that instance. He wanted to be a hero.
marble falls
(70,732 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Egalitariat
(1,631 posts)
11 Bravo
(24,276 posts)I believe that both the prosecutrion AND the defense would stipulate to every item on the list.
dkf
(37,305 posts)What about assault? There seems to be evidence of that.
intheflow
(29,981 posts)before Zimmerman entered his immediate area. And I wouldn't call trying to defend myself against someone following me on a dark and rainy night "assault," anyway. I would call it defending myself.
dkf
(37,305 posts)No evidence Zimmerman punched or kicked or landed any blows on Martin.
The only evidence is that Martin damaged Zimmerman's nose and head.
intheflow
(29,981 posts)That's initiating something. If Martin had approached his car, that would be different. But Zimmerman left his vehicle and that started everything rolling.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Thus it has little bearing on the argument against self defense.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)He's stalking the kid and then closes to within a distance where the kid felt physically threatened.
If you believe Zimmerman's story where supposedly the kid jumped out of some bushes that weren't even there, then I guess you can come up with some sort of assault claim.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Seriously?
Under the right circumstance. John Glen flattened an idiot who got in face saying he was a liar and had never been to the moon. The judge said "I would have knocked his ass out too." And tossed the case. So your assertion that one can do whatever and not get popped is just wishing.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
I think you're thinking of Buzz Aldrin. 
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)There is not any doubt that a reasonable person would perceive Zimmerman as menacing.
If it happened exactly like the witness says, that he was "right behind" the Martin kid, and if he kept on approaching after the kid asked why he was following him, then yeah, he has every legal right to punch him in the nose.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)If Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon's jacket and was pulling Trayvon toward him then Trayvon had a right to hit Zimmerman in order to get away from him.
spin
(17,493 posts)it was foolish.
The best way to avoid a gun fight is to not be in one. I'm a resident Floridian with a concealed weapons permit. I carry on a regular basis and since I got my permit over 15 years ago, I have become an extremely polite individual.
I definitely do not wish to get into an argument with someone that might turn violent. If I sense that I have a serious situation developing with another individual, I will simply break off and walk away even if it makes me look like a coward.
Had I been in Zimmerman's shoes that night, I would have probably paid little or no attention to a strange individual in my neighborhood wearing a hoodie in the rain. If he had set off my radar by acting suspicious, I would have called the police. If the person on the other end of the line advised me to not follow the suspicious individual, I would have went on my way. I realize that such calls are recorded and even if I was within my legal rights to pursue, it is wisest to follow police instructions.
It is quite possible that Zimmerman did nothing wrong that night and his story might be basically accurate. Still he has ruined his and his family's life over an unimportant incident.
I feel he was following what he thought was a suspicious person without considering the fact that that person had good reason to feel he was also acting in a suspicious manner.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I've been telling my nieces and nephew...avoid confrontations at all costs. Back down, apologize, and be on your way. It would save everyone tons of grief if people got over this attitude where you must dominate.
spin
(17,493 posts)Many here will disagree but if I was on the Zimmerman jury, I would vote that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present a strong enough case to convince me that he didn't use legitimate self defense and his attorneys planted plenty of doubt in my mind.
Our legal system is designed to insure that, as much as possible, only guilty people are punished even if that means that sometimes a guilty person will walk free.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Unfortunately if you haven't studied it in nitty gritty detail the verdict may not make sense. That is a problem.
Skittles
(169,364 posts)why do you not believe it was TRAYVON using self defense against a paranoid gun-toting racist freak? I believe it was Trayvon who was fighting for (and who ultimately lost) his life
spin
(17,493 posts)in an aggressive manner and may have even flashed his concealed weapon. Martin may have had good reason to fear for his life at the time and could have been standing his ground.
The problem is that if I was on the jury, I would not necessary believe that Zimmerman was innocent but I would feel that the prosecution had not proved the Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury instructions would require me to vote that he was not guilty. There is a chance that Zimmerman's story is accurate and if so, he was using legitimate self defense.
I should add that I am thankful that I am not on that jury.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)if Zimmerman confronted Martin after Zimmerman reported his "suspicious behavior" and police told him not to intervene, Zimmerman's guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, in a struggle there might be a time you're "defending yourself." So what? It was your "offense" that initiated the struggle to begin with. So it's irrelevant.
Unless Martin was initiating a crime first, anything that happened after the moment Zimmerman confronted Martin was Zimmerman's fault. That's how I would judge it. I don't care if Martin had Zimmerman under his feet with a bloody nose when he was shot.
It's at least racist-and-stupidity-induced manslaughter on Zimmerman's part.
spin
(17,493 posts)He would have been wise to do so.
I can see problems with your system of "if you start it anything that happens is your fault."
I could provoke a person into taking a punch at me. I then could overcome him and get him on the ground where I could then reduce his face to a pulp with my fists or stand over him and kick him repeatedly in the head until he can never fully recover. I could kill him and say, "He started the fight so I am not responsible for his death."
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Because a provocation is a confrontation; is it so hard to comprehend that? Besides, we're talking about a case where only one guy survived, and that's the account that we have. You talk about the slippery slope? Let's talk about how this will now develop: if you confront anybody in the dark, and you want to get away with it, just make sure he or she is dead. No matter how mean-spirited or ill-advised they can prove your confrontation was. Now that's an extremely bad precedent. How about avoiding that?
So, Zimmerman won. This is a stupid reversal of ethics, morals, law and responsibility, not to mention a triumph of racism. He was guilty of one thing beyond a reasonable doubt: criminal negligence. And he's probably guilty of more, but that possibly couldn't be proved. If any legal system can acquit this guy, it's rotten to the core. And that goes for any jury that does. No wonder we can't and won't go after the Wall Street bandits. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" causes serious brain glitches on our mis-educated, degenerate society.
I don't know which is worse, hearing the verdict or hearing anyone on this site defend it.
spin
(17,493 posts)There are no witnesses to the initial confrontation. No recordings or camera footage.
Perhaps Zimmerman is telling the truth. Notice that I said, "perhaps." Zimmerman could be lying through his teeth. Notice that I said, "could be." It is quite possible that Zimmerman acted in an aggressive manner when he confronted Martin. Notice I said, "It is quite possible." It might also be possible that Martin confronted Zimmerman and intended to beat the crap out of him. Notice I said, "It might also be possible."
Waffle words like perhaps, could be, it is quite possible and It might also be possible do not indicate a high level of certainty.
Can you say with absolute certainty that Zimmerman confronted Martin with the intention of killing him? If so where is your evidence? Why was it not presented to the jury?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)I don't care if he's telling the truth.
His choice to confront somebody who wasn't committing a crime was at least criminal negligence. Do you understand that concept? Criminal negligence?
You keep on asking irrelevant questions as though you don't. Here's an example: do you think a drunk driver intends to kill anybody? No. Yet, he still gets convicted of vehicular manslaughter or homicide due to criminal negligence. There is no doubt about this concept. It's the way the law has always worked, until ALEC tampered with it.
Zimmerman took a situation where both of them would have lived, and for no reasons except racism, paranoia and vaingloriousness, turned it into one where one of them would have to die. There is no doubt that.
That's all the guilt I need to say he's guilty. The only question any event afterward can determine is if he committed manslaughter or murder. I don't care what Martin did after he met Zimmerman. I don't care why he did it. If Zimmerman can't demonstrate he caught him committing a crime, (besides say, fighting Zimmerman, which Zimmerman didn't catch him doing) Zimmerman's guilty of at least manslaughter.
No other hypothetical's, no if's about anything afterward needed. So, don't bring them up again. He's guilty of at least manslaughter.
I begin to hope African-Americans and other ethnic groups practice their conceal-carry rights by marching with their permits and firearms en masse through white neighborhoods. Florida really deserves to be shaken to its roots for this.
spin
(17,493 posts)It is not illegal to follow someone in Florida. Nor is it illegal to walk up to a person and ask what he is doing in your neighborhood. It may not be wise but it is not illegal.
If I am walking through a strange neighborhood and a person asks why I am there I answer in a polite manner. Even if the person talks in an aggressive manner, I will be polite. If he attacks me, I will use a proper level of force to resist his attack but I will not get him on the ground and either try to beat the crap out of him or slam his head into the ground.
You seem to seriously believe that Martin would have been within his rights to put Zimmerman in the hospital or six feet under merely because Zimmerman pursued and confronted him. You would also deny Zimmerman any right to resist Martin's attempt to seriously injure or kill him as Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Of course it is possible that Zimmerman confronted Martin and flashed his concealed weapon in order to intimidate which is illegal in Florida. If that happened, Martin would have been within his rights to "stand his ground" and fight.
There is no evidence to show that this is what happened or for that matter what did happen.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The Fugitive Slave Law, Dred Scott and Jim Crow were all the law. The ones who were right were the ones who only had their opinions. Like those laws, if this is the law, it's worth a revolution to get rid of it.
If Martin had a weapon and "stood his ground," Martin would have a life sentence or would be on death row now. If Zimmerman didn't die, Martin would have been convicted of assault and battery. This law is not something that's going to be applied equally, hasn't been, and isn't meant to be.
But yes, you're right, it is the law. It's also oppressive. Anyone who supports this just because it's the "law" is as corrupt as the law has become.
spin
(17,493 posts)or support organizations who are trying to accomplish that goal.
I see no problem with that approach.
Skittles
(169,364 posts)ZERO DOUBT
spin
(17,493 posts)that there was indeed some doubt.
I also believe that they would agree with me that they may not feel that Zimmerman is innocent beyond a doubt. In fact that might go so far as to say that Zimmerman may have actually murdered Martin. The catch is that the evidence as presented by the prosecution didn't prove Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I should point out that I am not rejoicing because Zimmerman will walk free. There is nothing to celebrate here unless it is that our legal system functioned as designed. Six people considered all the evidence and reached a verdict. Hopefully the verdict will be accepted and only peaceful protests will result.
I support the decision of the jury and I would have done the same if they had determined that he was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Shifts to them to prove their "Self defense" claim. They did not do so IMO.
spin
(17,493 posts)Zimmerman did not follow the rules of legitimate self defense.
This article discusses the law as it exists in Florida:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/
alp227
(33,122 posts)Please take care not to give RW sites traffic from this progressive forum.
spin
(17,493 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)he should have avoided confrontation instead of pursuit.
dkf
(37,305 posts)
CatWoman
(80,230 posts)Skittles
(169,364 posts)I think it goes beyond simple gun humping - it is racism
spin
(17,493 posts)that they often assume that anyone who doesn't feel that Zimmerman is guilty must be a racist.
I feel some tend to throw that insult too quickly.
I have said that if I was on the jury I would have to vote that Zimmerman is not guilty. I have also said that I believe that Martin may well have been "standing his ground" as he had good reason to fear for his life if Zimmerman approached him in a aggressive manner and flashed his concealed weapon.
I am not interested in the ethnic background of the two individuals in the least. I am only interested in the evidence. I would have exactly the same opinion if the races had been reversed and Zimmerman had been a white teenage victim and Martin a black adult.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a huge burden but that is the way our justice system was designed. I will admit that it can allow a guilty person to walk free. The fact that only one man survived to tell his side of the story is another factor. I would have loved to listen to what Trayvon had to say about what happened that night.
It is my opinion that the prosecution did not prove Zimmerman's quilt beyond reasonable doubt. It's unfortunate that there were no witnesses to the beginning of the encounter and no surveillance cameras in the area.
Skittles
(169,364 posts)THAT IS A FACT
frylock
(34,825 posts)are you going to go to bat for people that have intercourse with animals based solely on it's legality? do ethics ever weigh into your thinking whatsoever?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)What about gay marriage?
frylock
(34,825 posts)are you under the impression that I would be against gay marriage?
intheflow
(29,981 posts)against someone he felt threatened by, too. But he's dead, so he'll never be able to speak for himself on the matter.
classof56
(5,376 posts)As Zimmerman said prior to the trial, "It must have been God's plan". So--there ya go. God works in mysterious ways, for sure. I wish you well. May you be safe and never encounter anyone who might in the slightest way you might perceive as the tiniest threat. Or vice versa. Just to be on the safe side, I suggest packing a big ol' handgun. Word of advice: Holster it on your side, so it's real easy to reach when needed. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot or some other part of your anatomy. And if the person you determine is a threat happens to be a minority teenager, not to worry. Fire away. God says it's A-Okay.
Peace.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This case was the wrong vehicle to achieve some sort of racial justice because a conviction demanded jury nullification and disregard for the actual law to get to a guilty verdict.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)If Zimmerman did not PURSUE the teen, there would nto have been any assualt, period.
Did you bother reading how this guy had called the police several dozen times any time a Black teen entered the neighborhood?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/trayvon-shooters-911-calls-potholes-piles-trash-black-men
or that his own neighbors had complained about his aggressive tactics?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html
Zimmerman was out looking for a black kid, he WANTED a fight, and when he could not win one, he took his gun, and shot a kid whose main fofense was buying skittles from a 7-11.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Moreover, if the purpose was to fight TM why call the police? If the purpose was to kill TM why call the police?
Lex
(34,108 posts)Why did he follow Trayvon?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Do you think Zimmerman bears any responsibility?
Or do you think he legitimately feared for his life,
after making every possible reasonable alternative
effort to protect himself and diffuse the situation?
I realize you only have an opinion, and none of us
know with certainty.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I'm not sure I agree that self defense should allow for no punishment but there are too many circumstances where you would not want someone in jail, instances of abuse for example.
Should there be more leeway on sentencing? That when someone uses imperfect self defense (response is unequal, gun vs concrete for example) the judge can order a few years in jail? I would be open to that.
But as the law reads, the prosecution hasn't proven their case and is relying on emotions to convict Z. That is a problem.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)the silence that follows the shot; the
absence of hoarseness in Zimmerman's voice?
My speculative opinion is that both
of their voices might be on that tape.
If Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin
in any way, and Martin responded aggressively,
maybe Zimmerman panicked when it became
a physical fight, it suddenly got real, and he
is a big chicken, so he started yelling for help.
He somehow got his gun. Or he already had
his hand on it, which is what I believe, from the
moment he left his car.
This is only my imaginative speculation and
I wasn't there nor am I on the jury. I
know you know that already.
Trayvon started screaming for his life, and
silence.
Because to me, it sounded like there were
two different types of yelling on that tape.
I consider Zimmerman depraved.
He could have pled involuntary manslaughter
right at the start, taken some responsibility
or showed some remorse. Might not
even have done jail time.
Instead he lied and lied, and his team of
experts and lawyers distorted the story until
Trayvon was on trial instead of him.
Instead he concocted a fabulous tale which is simply
unsupported both by forensics and many of the
witnesses. He is a fool.
That's why in my own mind it went from being
manslaughter to second degree. The post-
event activities & statements attest to ill
original intent.
My opinion only.
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)and said Trayvon was confronted.
dkf
(37,305 posts)"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)I don't know about you but I would be scared and extremely pissed off that this guy was following me. Zimmerman had a HUGE responsibility here because he has a gun. He has a responsibility to avoid a fight at all costs. Zimmerman needed to defuse the situation as quickly as possible and it sure as hell doesn't sound like he had that in mind. No, he wanted to make sure the ass hole didn't get away.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This may make sense in "reality" world but it doesn't work with the laws we have.
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)Zimmerman put him in this state of mind by following him and infringing on his rights. If someone is about to get raped are they not allowed to fight? The law even says Trayvon could have used deadly force if he thought his life was in danger. You can use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others if you reasonably believe someone is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force while committing or about to commit any of the following crimes: burglary, kidnapping, assault in the first or second degree, burglary, robbery, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
Trayvon acted in his rights even if he did throw the first punch. But it was Zimmerman's fault that it came to a confrontation in the fist place where Trayvon felt threatened.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)The man’s actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.
Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”
Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?
I believe it does. But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.
No reasonably careful person would do what the man did, and that should be obvious to everyone.
And, that is without considering anyone’s race.
Roberto “Bob” Martinez is an attorney in Miami and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carrying-loaded.html#storylink=cpy
should be popping that champagne cork about now because of the wonderful way the amerikkkan system of jurisprudence worked this time. Congratulation! You got your wish.
slor
(5,504 posts)a creep following a kid. If Trayvon threw the 1st punch, he certainly had good reason to do so.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)TM was only the latest person to eb the target if documented bad behavior, and as far as whyc all the police, he probably knew they would let him off, since you know, they actually did until it became a national outrage.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Call the police so you can kill/confront someone. Really?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)must have been a boy scout.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I've had a couple of POTENTIAL dust ups in the past (people threatening to kill me or do me serious bodily harm, a peeping tom etc.) and I ALWAYS call the cops to get it on record. It's just what you do.
This case is pretty fucking simple. Zimmerman the racist piece of shit was angling for a confrontation with a black kid in his neighborhood and bit off more than he could chew when he physically confronted Martin. When he started losing the fight, he pulled a gun and shot the kid.
What this means is that any Johnny Wayne type can START a fight and shoot somebody if they start LOSING the fight. At least in Florida and if Zimmy is found innocent.
Edited to add: This will also mean that if I'm winning a fight against someone who attacks ME, I'm going to be less inclined to let up on the attacker until he's motionless. Either dead or unconscious, motionless. It's stupidity that's going to lead to MORE fatalities, one way or another, in confrontations.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Does no one care how the law works?
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)martial arts and at least once a week during that training, I've either been told or have told about physical confrontations and the law. I've been told about it from lawyers and cops, many of whom I trained or with whom I trained with.
Zimmerman was the one who was armed and Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation and Zimmerman was the one who used deadly force without need. Zimmerman was the guilty party, NOT Martin.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Zimmerman was the one who used deadly force without need - that is what needs to be proven.
Is it unreasonable to believe there was need to use deadly force in George Zimmerman's mind.
Hard to say. Any doubt, even for a second, then you can't convict.
Response to dkf (Reply #138)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)
Caroline-Vivienne
(117 posts)gristy
(10,727 posts)He also knew if/when his confrontation escalated he had to have already made that call.
brush
(61,033 posts)are told no to follow anyone, and above all else, not to carry a gun.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Many neighbors watches don't follow those guidelines and are not registered with the national organization. Plenty will probably be tightening up their own regulations after this case (if any good could come out of it).
Response to dkf (Reply #24)
Politicub This message was self-deleted by its author.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)That's a pretty nasty post. I think DKF has a very good command of the case and the law surrounding it. Posts like these do not help your cause.
Politicub
(12,327 posts)I just get tired of people defending Zimmerman when TM is the one who is dead. Someone I work with has a 17 y.o. son and she can't even watch the case because it bothers her so much.
It's become a symbol of a bigger racial problem in our society, and I believe that TM is being dragged through the mud when no one can prove he did anything wrong. Everything is an assumption.
So will this lead to reasonable doubt and exonerate Zimmerman? That's up to the jury, since no one has seen the case exactly as they have had it presented to them.
If he gets off, I won't feel like justice has been served, and millions of others will feel the same way.
And I'm sure the opposite is also true. Everything about this case stinks, but nothing will bring back TM.
ET Awful
(24,788 posts)"I'm in fear for my life," when was the one initiating the confrontation and intending to kill his neighbor.
He thought it would provide backup for a false self defense or "standing my ground".
gristy
(10,727 posts)He was establishing up his alibi, if you will.
brush
(61,033 posts)zimmerman has a history of violence.
He was involved in a bitter domestic violence incident with his ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo. Zimmerman attacked her while the two were driving to a counseling session
Zimmerman also became enraged that she had come home late. They wrestled and he threw her on the bed, smacking her.
Zimmerman followed a man in his car until the police arrived. Daniel Osmun, the other driver, told police that Zimmerman was tailgating and that he spit his gum out the window "out of frustration.
He also got in a fight with a cop and was arrested.
zimmerman work as security He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons. He picked up and threw a woman. She twisted her ankle. It was pure rage. A co-worker said he had a Jeckel and Hyde temper.
He was later ordered to take an anger management class.
This was no innocent, pudgy victim of the thug Martin. He was an aggressive wannabe looking to stop another suspect from getting away. And he stopped him alright.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)playing in his PARENT'S driveway! That kid was "SUSPICIOUS" too, according to that lying son of a bitch.
MrScorpio
(73,761 posts)
Stranger Danger, baby!
dkf
(37,305 posts)MrScorpio
(73,761 posts)Of whom the young person remarked to his friend on the phone, and that friend suggests that the person following them around could be a sexual predator, what else is that young person going to think if the person following them around in the dark, by his own admission, does NOTHING to reassure the young person that he ISN'T a sexual predator?
Again, the suggestion had already been made that the then unknown to Martin, Z, was a sexual predator, but even if he wasn't, that idea was already in the mind of Martin and Z did or said nothing to dissuade him of that idea while he was following him.
Martin most certainly would feel it necessary to defend himself from such a person, who was suggested to him could be sexual predator, would he not?
That's why it's relevant.
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)What would you be thinking? My brother was followed by a creepy guy once and he came running back to my grandparents house completely freaked out and scared out of his wits pounding on the front door for someone to let him in. He was 15 at the time and it was mid day. Had it been night time my brother would have been twice as scared and would have become very violent if approached I have no doubt.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)We were only staying at my grandparents for a couple of days so he had no fear of that guy thinking that is where he lived.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Safety first.
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)I avoided my house at all costs. There was no way I wanted that guy to know where I lived. I headed for the police station but he bugged out before we got there.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Why would you stay out in the open if you are afraid?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)That doesn't make sense.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)He just wants to lose this guy but not go home and show him where he lives. He is cornered so his flight or fight instincts are kicking in.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Is that what they tell kids nowadays? If someone is following you DON'T GO HOME? Stay out in the open? Is that really your idea of good advice?
Quixote1818
(31,116 posts)You would go home and I wouldn't. There is no way in hell I would want a pervert to know where I lived. But for the sake of your argument that Trayvon started the fight which we don't know. From the phone call it sounded like it escalated into a fight but if you are not black you can't know how blacks feel just being out and about and having people profile them constantly. I am sure it hurts them deeply and makes them angry. Whatever state of mind Trayvon is in right now is Zimmerman's fault for stalking him. Zimmerman asks "What are you doing around here?" WTF Dam this pisses me off! It's not much different from asking Rosa Parks what she is doing on the bus. So if you have a problem with Trayvon getting angry about being profiled then I am wondering why that is? We know Zimmerman is nuts at this point and thinks Trayvon is a punk that is a fact! That right there is enough for Trayvon to fear for his life. Yet you still seem to blame Trayvon for feeling like his rights have been infringed. Why is that? Is it because you think he is just a thug?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)Rather than live in the fear that the perp knows where you live so he can return at the time of his choosing and perpetrate , god knows what horrors, on you.
vanlassie
(6,218 posts)Zimmerman was damaged. There is no evidence that Martin did the damage.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Ballistic tests showing TM on top. No evidence Z was ever on top. No eye witness accounts of flip flopping in position, ie change in who was on top.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Unfortunately, his life doesn't seem to matter among most gun lovers (who are typically bigots, to boot).
That's what defense and bigots/gunners miss. If there was a confrontation, by them murder was already in motion. There can be plenty of doubt in who was on top, who threw a punch, etc. That doesn't matter in the big picture of whether Zman - an armed bigot - shot an unarmed black kid.
I think a lot of gun nuts are afraid they could be the next Zman.
brush
(61,033 posts)That's only speculation. They were both probably on top at some point. and consider this:
Wouldn't a straddling Martin have blocked zimmy's arm from reaching for the gun under and behind his hip, because that's exactly where Martin's knee and thigh would be if he were the one doing the straddling. If what zimmerman alleges is true (not my belief), his arms may have been free to move in front of a straddler's thighs but that would be it.
He would have had to reach around and under Martin's knee and thigh and under his own hip to get to the gun tucked into the rear attached holster. That would not only take arms about a foot longer but arms of Herculean strength to lift up his big body, weighed down even more by Martin's) enough to get the gun out from under all that weight.
And wasn't wannabe boy also taking MMA classes 3 times a week for a year? Didn't he learn anything about leverage and how to use his weigh advantage instead of just allowing a teen boy who he outweighed by 40 lbs, and who he had superior adult male upper body strength over, to just pummel him like a helpless rag doll without any offering any resistance?
And after all that alleged head bashing on concrete, he just needed a band-aid for treatment, no concussion, no skull fracture, no hemotoma, no blood on the sidewalk, no trip to ER?
Sounds like he conked himself on the back of the head and nose with his own gun after he realized that he had fucked up big time by killing the kid instead of making the "heroic" citizen's arrest he had envisioned.
That would explain how it was his own blood on his own gun, not Martin's.
Sorry, zimmy's story does not compute. And neither does your support for that killer.
dkf
(37,305 posts)And apparently the guy sucked at MMA as attested to by the trainer. If he could have used these super duper skills why was he on the bottom when the shot was fired? Are you saying he deliberately maneuvered himself under TM and propped him at the correct angle to make it look like TM was dominating him?
That is crazy.
Yeah no wonder you need to discount the ballistics. It doesn't fit your theory at all.
brush
(61,033 posts)there is no way he could have gotten to the gun if Martin was atop him like he claimed.
In other words, zimmerman lied. But that's nothing new, he lied to a judge in court yet you believe him.
Amazing!
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)bruises, cuts, scrapes NOTHING on his knuckles!! The poor kid was being followed but someone he had no reason to believe wasn't a sexual pervert or serial killer. DAMN!! It ain't rocket science. You sound like you're rooting for the return of "SUNDOWN LAWS"-"n%gger don't let the sun go down on you!"
spanone
(140,950 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Wouldn't it be more implausible if he didn't feel fear while getting beat up?
Lex
(34,108 posts)He made up this "fear for my life" shit to try to groom the murder into self-defense.
spanone
(140,950 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)He inititated everything by stalking then confronting Martin
dkf
(37,305 posts)No evidence Z confronted Martin either verbally or physically. Rachel Jeantel's testimony had TM confronting Z verbally.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)So if you're walking down the street and I follow you, and I make it fairly clear that my purprose is to follow you, to pace you, to watch you...that's not stalking?
stalking present participle of stalk (Verb)
Verb
Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".
And, if you're driving down the street and I'm walking on the sidewalk, and I yell out "Hey dkf!" is that a confrontation?
dkf
(37,305 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)your time.
Besides, stand your ground only applies to gun toting yahoos. If you are really insane and walk around with loaded skittles then you have crossed the line, and are free game. No standing your ground in that case.
1monster
(11,045 posts)Relevant section:
(1)(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(emphasis mine)
MH1
(19,051 posts)What evidence are you referring to, that states unequivocally that the damage was inflicted by Trayvon Martin?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Ballistic evidence showing TM was on top of Z at time of shooting.
MH1
(19,051 posts)You want GZ to be 'not guilty' and perhaps you will get that by the court. But If so, I will not understand it, because what I understood from various sources is that GZ is not held to "reasonable doubt" of his guilt - he already admitted killing Trayvon - but instead to "affirmative defense" meaning his defense had to show that he was reasonably in fear of his life (i.e. that a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted as he did). Personally, I don't think the defense came close to proving that, but I am not on the jury, I'm not from Florida, I'm not a gun owner (although I learned basic marksmanship in the military), so I have no basis to predict what the jury will decide if they stray from the law as I understand it - and it seems to me fairly common for juries to stray from the law, so I'm not betting anything on the outcome.
dkf
(37,305 posts)His was the most credible and he had the best vantage point.
All I want is for the law to be applied properly. Frankly it looks to me like they never had the evidence to convict.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Hmmm,, a 5'9", 190 lb grown man with a history of violence, who was carrying a gun, and had been taking MMA classes 3 times per week for a year, up against a 5'11", 165 lb 17 year old kid who was armed with nothing but a can of tea and some skittles.... none of Zimmermans DNA found on Martins hands, sleeves, or anywhere else. How was this possible? No blood splatter from repeated punching and bashing Zimmermans head on the sidewalk?? Not even ONE DROP of Zimmermans blood ANYWHERE on Martin???
Zimmermans own blood on his hands could be easily dismissed as "wiping his face" or "touching his head to feel the extent of his injuries", and never be thought of as evidence.
Ghost
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Trayvon.
1monster
(11,045 posts)of that is Zimmerman's own self-interested testimony.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)nothing. The only "evidence" is the testimony from Z, who may well have exacerbated his own injuries to back up a fabricated story of self-defense.
He said the kid punched him, broke his nose, then covered his mouth and nose with those same hands. His nose was bloody, his head was bloody, yet Trayvon's hands were clean, with no blood even on residue swabs, nothing from the scraping under the nails, nothing on the gun that Z says he reached for.
Could you point to a link with that evidence?
On the other hand Martin's sweater, and the too long drawstring on the hoodie, are indicative of clothing that has pulled on by an attacker, and there is certainly evidence of the gunshot, and a self-admitted shooter.
And as for this "No evidence Zimmerman initiated anything or entered his area" he said he did on a videotaped statement while accompanied by a police officer. He even said he turned around and went back toward Martin after he was "heading for his truck". That is in the evidence pool.
tblue37
(68,128 posts)
Head and face injuries bleed a lot, even when they are minor, superficial injuries, because the head and face are well supplied with capillaries. The images we have all seen before--taken right afterward--show a fair amount of blood, but once the blood is wiped away, this is what the boo-boos look like.
These images have not been as widely publicized. I wonder why.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)There is a metal sprinkler head or something metal like that on the ground where the struggle took place.
The back of his head could have hit the metal object on the ground while they were rolling on the ground without Trayvon knowing it.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)when Martin confronted him, Zimmerman reached for his cell phone to "call the emergency number"...it was then that Martin struck him...
Question: Was Martin acting out of a "reasonable" fear that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon?
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)If I was being confronted by a stranger who reaches into his pocket, I'm going to take him down. Or give it my best shot at least.
Unfortunately, after this trial, I'm not going to let up until the said stranger is motionless. Dead or unconscious, either way he's going to be motionless before I let up.
MH1
(19,051 posts)I may have missed that part of the testimony. From what I understand, there was testimony that the two were fighting. Was there testimony that anyone (other than Zimmerman himself, of course) witnessed Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman? If not, what do you consider constitutes evidence that Trayvon committed the crime of assault?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Eyewitness evidence that one person was on top punching the person on the bottom, ballistic evidence showing TM was on top and Z was on the bottom.
MH1
(19,051 posts)was that GZ had some minor scratches and bruises.
Witnesses all stated they weren't sure what they saw.
I missed the ballistic evidence but even if TM ended up on top, does not determine that he was the assaulter.
onenote
(45,980 posts)as to the state's claim that it was not self defense.
In Florida, it is up to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act out of self defense. The conflicting evidence on who initiated the altercation that led ultimately to Trayvon's death helps the defense, not the prosecution.
MH1
(19,051 posts)the state to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I should go find the link where I read that. It makes sense, because after all, in a "self-defense" defense against a murder charge where the defendant admits killing the person, the defendant already acted as judge, jury and executioner of the deceased. So they must bear some proof that their act was justified. That is how I understood it from my reading. (I work during the day and can't be glued to trial-TV all day to hear what the pundits say about it).
So I find it interesting that so many people keep saying that the state must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the shooter was NOT acting in self-defense. That just makes NO sense, because it would take us back to a lawless society where in the dark of night, anyone can gun down anyone - which is basically what happened here.
But if you are right, then you are right. It would be friggin' stupid and immoral as hell if this is the law, though.
onenote
(45,980 posts)In some states, such as Ohio, the accused has the burden both of producing evidence to support a claim of self defense and the burden of proving the truthfulness of that claim by preponderance of the evidence.
But in other states, such as Florida, the only burden on the defense is a very minimal burden of providing evidence that, if true, would support a self defense claim. The burden of rebutting the claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, falls on the state.
Here is the language that the judge used (based on the Florida standard jury instructions and statute) with respect to this issue:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
MH1
(19,051 posts)"if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
is different than saying that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was NOT* "defending" himself.
"justified in the use of deadly force" is the key phrase here, to me. I don't find any reasonable doubt that he had other options than the use of deadly force. So therefore he was not justified in using it and I must find him guilty.
Maybe that's just how I'm seeing it. What matters is how the jury sees it.
But in real life, a large part of the world knows that George Zimmerman is a murderer who stalked and murdered a child. If the jury lets him walk, we'll just have to be content to know that his reputation is shot (literally) with all decent people of the world. And of course, if one of us were to encounter him and feel stalked by him, we'd be justified in gunning him down, because we know that he might pull a gun and kill us, since he has already done exactly that.
* added NOT on edit after response pointed out the typo.
onenote
(45,980 posts)No one is saying the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was defending himself. That makes no sense. The state is trying to convict Zimmerman, not establish that his actions were justified under the law.
The test, as clearly indicated by the jury instructions is that the jury can only convict Zimmrman if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was NOT justified in using deadly force. That is the same as saying (as the jury instructions state) the jury must acquit if they have any reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was justifiable.
MH1
(19,051 posts)(I agree it makes no sense the way I wrote it, perhaps you could have read the context and realized that I probably left out a word by mistake? Just sayin'. Anyway it's edited now.)
I think the follow on paragraph is clear, as I think the so-called evidence is clear in this case: a reasonable person ("a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances" would've NOT shot TM in this situation, and not feared for or ended up with their own death or severe injury - i.e. a reasonable person does not find the use of deadly force necessary. I find Z guilty.
ewagner
(18,967 posts)the burdens are exactly opposite of what you would expect...
in most states, the defense has to prove all the elements of self-defense only by a "preponderance of evidence"...but the prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it was not justified....
some states hold that preponderance of evidence means only that "it' possible" that the crime could have happened this way while the prosecution is still held to the highest possible standard of establishing doubt via evidence...
from my law school outlines:
M. Burden of proof: Nearly all states make a claim of self-defense an affirmative defense, i.e., one which must be raised, in the first instance, by D. Many states also place the burden of persuasion on D, requiring him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all the requirements for the defense are met. It is constitutional for a state to put this burden of persuasion upon the defendant.
dkf
(37,305 posts)For affirmative self defense.
Once those are included in the notes the jury must find this was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. They must have certainty and no question in their mind. If they waver they must declare him not guilty.
Jury instructions here:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
Self defense is towards the end. It negates both 2nd degree and manslaughter charges.
MH1
(19,051 posts)From the doc:
I realize "justifiable use of deadly force" is more words than "self-defense" and in context may be considered by you or others to be equivalent, but the connotation is not equivalent to the average person.
Based on this definition, I think a reasonable person ("reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances"
who had respect for human life would have avoided shooting Martin without fear of, or the result of, themselves dying or ending up with a long hospital stay. Therefore, according to these instructions, I would find Z guilty.
dkf
(37,305 posts)You must find it is unreasonable to think that **he** perceived it was the only way to avoid serious bodily injury or death and must be absolutely certain with no doubt as to how you feel he felt.
Honestly how in the world can you come to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt?
MH1
(19,051 posts)the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.
It goes on to say,
However, you can't take that last line on its own, and it doesn't negate the reasonable person standard (otherwise why would the reasonable person standard even be included?); therefore it is additive: both must be found true. "Reasonable person" must be met, AND GZ must himself have believed the danger was real. If the latter is true, but a reasonable person would not have felt that way OR a reasonable person would have not felt the only option was deadly force, than the case still fails that test, and Z is guilty.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Him.
If he could have gotten up wouldn't he have done so? If people were coming why weren't they there. If the police were coming there would have been sirens.
What other avenues were there to escape being pummeled?
brush
(61,033 posts)Well if he was pinned, how did he get to his rear holster under his pinned body and inside his pants?
It did not happen the way zimmerman claims. He lied and you believe him?
Amazing how some will twist their minds into pretzels to coddle a killer.
dkf
(37,305 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)with the gun was on top and got up after the shot.
onenote
(45,980 posts)any conviction obtained against Zimmerman would be reversed. While the concept of "who had respect for human life" might seem self-evident, it is not part of the legal standard. The issue presented is whether a reasonably cautious and prudent person would have been reasonable under the circumstances in fearing that they were incurring or about to incur great bodily harm or death and that they could not otherwise avoid that consequence without resorting to deadly force.
If the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman could have ended the altercation with Martin by means short of deadly force, then they should convict. And if they conclude that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had the means of ending the altercation through non-deadly force, the instructions indicate that they should acquit.
MH1
(19,051 posts)I'm pretty sure I even saw that earlier in the jury instructions.
But, I have to go do something more interesting and useful with my day.
Bottom line, Z is morally and actually guilty of murder, whether he does time for it is a technicality, but one that has large implications for how our society evolves (or dissolves, as the case may be).
onenote
(45,980 posts)Yes, you saw a reference to respect for human life earlier in the instructions. (Actually, you saw a reference to a lack of "regard for human life" or an "indifference to human life". Those references relate to the elements of second degree murder. But what you are thus postulating, by inserting that concept into the elements of self-defense (or justifiable use of deadly force) is that no one who might otherwise be guilty of second degree murder could ever assert self-defense. And since the law does allow self defense to be claimed with respect to second degree murder, the inclusion of the words "with a respect for human life" into the self defense instruction would be clear reversible error.
A reasonable and prudent person would not have followed or initiated a face to face confrontation without saying something like:
"I'm with the neighborhood watch and we've had some incidents recently . . ."
And on and on until he reassure Martin that he was no creep sexual pervert.
Also, and a HUGE ALSO, no reasonable and prudent person, especially a neighborhood watch person, would be carrying a loaded weapon.
It's the biggest no-no a neighborhood watch person can committ.
So I'd have to say zimmy was not reasonable and prudent.
How the hell could any reasonable and prudent person even think he was? He initiated a confrontation and shot and killed an unarmed, innocent teen minding his own business.
erpowers
(9,437 posts)Yes, George Zimmerman had injuries the night that he shot Travyon Martin; however, it is very possible that Martin was trying to get home when he was confronted by Zimmerman and got off one punch that put Zimmerman on the ground temporarily.
It seems George Zimmerman claims Travyon Martin slammed his head against the concrete about 12 times and punched him in the face 25-30 times. First, did George Zimmerman look like a man who had both had his head slammed against concrete about 12 times and had been punched 25-30 times. Second, the evidence does not support Zimmerman's claims. George Zimmerman's DNA is not on Travyon Martin's hands. In addition, Martin does not have marks on his hands that would indicate having hit someone 25-30 times. Furthermore, Zimmerman did not have any marks on his hands that would indicate having defended himself from an attack. So, what we are to believe is that Zimmerman just laid on the ground while Martin pummeled him until Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun.
brush
(61,033 posts)His assertion does not make that a fact.
zimmerman is a proven liar — to a judge in court — and you believe zimmerman.
He killed the only other person that could tell us who assaulted who.
He also claimed that his head was bashed on concrete 20-30 times yet he only needed a band-aid. What, no concussion, no hemotoma, no cracked skull, no blood on the sidewalk, no hospitalization.
C'mon, use your head. You have to know better than those lies.
I chose not to believe a proven liar and an admitted killer.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)
you should be celebrating about now. You got your wish. Your hero/god is free to kill again. That's what all you zimpig apologists wanted. 21st century amerikkkan justice. I know you're proud to be back in the day.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Did this Saturday make you feel a little better about the bad, awful, no-good, horrible day you had about 8 months ago?
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)That's a lie right there..
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I mean not really in dispute. This list gets them indisputably wrong, but many people firmly believe and keep repeating the errors.
Like Heinlein wrote "I shot an error into the air. It's still going - everywhere."
dkf
(37,305 posts)A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Zimmerman was a full grown adult taking classes in martial arts and armed with a deadly weapon, Martin was a gawky teenager with Skittles and a drink.
Any danger Zimmerman found himself fearing that evening was entirely the product of his own inadvisable actions.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Zimmerman was an officious cop wannabe with delusions of competence who initiated an inadvisable confrontation based on nothing more than rank conjecture and against the instructions of the 911 operator. If Zimmerman had not acted like a total idiot looking to prove his ineptitude and lack of good judgment then Martin would be alive today and he would not be on trial.
The very best face you can put on his actions that night is negligent homicide and I think it goes beyond that.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Doesn't any one want to discuss the law?
greiner3
(5,214 posts)"If that is the law, then the law is an ass."
Dickens, I think.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Were otherwise.
1monster
(11,045 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)Given by the judge to the jury.
You may not like the law and even advocate to change it but what most on DU want by looking at the posts is for the jury to nullify the law and convict on moral basis.
1monster
(11,045 posts)interpreting the law (i.e., what is stalking under Florida law), rather than the actual law or the jury instructions.
In the line of posts that I was referring to, s/he was interpreting, not just posting jury instructions.
Politicub
(12,327 posts)It's pretty pointless, since we know where you stand and can anticipate your next comment. A "discussion of the law" includes looking at the totality of what happened.
dkf
(37,305 posts)If TM had spotted Z, called police, had his nose smashed in with his head contacting the ground a minimum of 6 times, then grabbed the gun and killed Z, with all the same evidence I would say self defense is plausible and cannot be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The law is the law. We are stuck with it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)Trayvon would be in the hoosegow.
dkf
(37,305 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Martin would already be serving 30-40 hard time.
Let's not try to fool ourselves with semantics. We do live in the USA where race is always right below the surface, and many times easily bubbles up, like it did that night when zimmy racially profile an unarmed, innocent teen minding his own business.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Cases should be tried on their merits. But convicting Z because of these other circumstances is not a step in the right direction.
Then this too would be tried on race, not on what Z did or did not do, which is just as perverse.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)seems like an endless loop of so called defence; the issue IS who was stalking who, and who had reason to be afraid for their life?
If some fat cracker with a concealed gun was following you around, would you feel fear? Would you defend yourself?
Would the fat cracker be defending himself if you were defending yourself? Where does that loop end?
In the murder cast it is a question of INTENT, and the fat cracker had some of that, (vigilante cleaning the streets) while his victim was merely walking home from the store, this is proven.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Response to dkf (Reply #19)
Kingofalldems This message was self-deleted by its author.
onenote
(45,980 posts)Trayvon had the right to "stand his ground" and defend himself but only if Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful act or had attacked him. Following Martin and questioning him was not unlawful (although it was inappropriate and stupid). There is no clear evidence either way as to who initiated the physical altercation. Thus, as to whether Trayvon was allowed to defend himself with force against Zimmerman, at least as an initial matter, comes down to a question of who threw the first punch.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)We know Zimmerman exaggerated his story. We know his injuries were minor. We know the neighbors were becoming aware of the fight and about to intervene. The fight was about to end.
Is it reasonable for Zimmerman to assume the next blow would have been more dangerous than the ones that didn't severely injure him? He had to have freed himself from the kid on top to get the gun.
"He shot him because he wanted to,not because he needed to". John Guy
He was not going to let the f'ing punk get away. He succeeded.
dkf
(37,305 posts)If you are screaming for 40 seconds and no one appears, is that a completely unreasonable assumption?
We've heard of incidences where no one came to help and the person screaming died. We've heard of police taking ages to get there.
DiMaio said there was evidence of 6 contacts with Zs head and the ground. When we are concerned with one hard jolt on a football player who has a helmet who contacts grass, why is this unreasonable to think you could suffer great bodily harm?
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and ask him to bash your head just once into the
sidewalk. Just one time, hard, so that you fear for
your skull breaking open.
Then take a look at the back of your head. You
might want to have a friend standing by with
an ambulance.
brush
(61,033 posts)and ol' zimmy claims he had his head bashed 20-30 times like that, but only needed a band-aid with no trip to the ER.
I have to say anyone who believes that is either stupid or allowing themselves to kinda half way believe such pure foolishness because they want the killer to get off.
Black kids lives don't mean very much to them apparently.
onenote
(45,980 posts)That is the question presented to the jury, in effect. The burden is on the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have feared great bodily harm or death.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)And having my head bashed into concrete?
Would you?
brush
(61,033 posts)If he was having his head bashed against concrete by a straddling Martin.
But wouldn't a straddling Martin have blocked zimmy's arm from reaching for the gun under and behind his hip, because that's exactly where Martin's knee and thigh would be if he were the one doing the straddling. If what zimmerman alleges is true (not my belief), his arms may have been free to move in front of a straddler's thighs but that would be it.
He would have had to reach around and under Martin's knee and thigh and under his own hip to get to the gun tucked into the rear attached holster. That would not only take arms about a foot longer but arms of Herculean strength to lift up his big body, weighed down even more by Martin's) enough to get the gun out from under all that weight.
And wasn't wannabe boy also taking MMA classes 3 times a week for a year? Didn't he learn anything about leverage and how to use his weigh advantage instead of just allowing a teen boy who he outweighed by 40 lbs, and who he had superior adult male upper body strength over, to just pummel him like a helpless rag doll without any offering any resistance?
And after all that alleged head bashing on concrete, he just needed a band-aid for treatment, no concussion, no skull fracture, no hemotoma, no blood on the sidewalk, no trip to the ER?
Sounds like he conked himself on the back of the head and nose with his own gun after he realized that he had fucked up big time by killing the kid instead of making the "heroic" citizen's arrest he had envisioned.
That would explain how it was his own blood on his own gun, not Martin's.
Sorry, zimmy's story does not compute. And neither does your support for that killer.
onenote
(45,980 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)
If I was on the jury, I would find that the evidence, taken as totality, allows me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not Zimmerman's only option to use deadly force to terminate the altercation with Martin.
brush
(61,033 posts)It's hard to understand what you're saying.
onenote
(45,980 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Were his story true, it might have been reasonable.
But at the very least the jury MUST know how
profoundly he exaggerated the fight and his
wounds.
The defense made itself look silly, going
over and over how these wounds were proof that
he was in fear for his life. How Trayvon was
armed with the deadly concrete. Silly hogwash.
4 more years
(101 posts)You are spot on he was about to get free and was in a rage . His rage took over and he pulled the gun and killed TM. It has been noted in the past that GZ has a temper and has a history of rage. This is what happened and GZ had to cover his ass with fear for his life. GZ went nuts and is covering his ass to be set free. I think this is a sick person who feels no remorse and needs a psychological examination. He was never evaluated by the police dept he applied to cause they saw his credit and stopped the process. Believe me he would never pass an evaluation to be a cop. This is one sick puppy with a gun.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)He had no reason to believe he had to use deadly force to prevent his death, or great bodily harm to himself.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that he had no right to use deadly force in self defense.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that
George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all
the elements of the charge have been proved."
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or
disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness."
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)We're supposed to believe that Zimmerman was in fear of his life, bullshit.
John2
(2,730 posts)proven, without a reasonable Doubt.
1. Trayvon Martin is Dead. Proven
2. The death was caused by a Criminal Act of George Zimmerman. proven
3. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. proven:
" An act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to single design or purpose" George Zimmerman falsely racially profiled and identified Trayvon Martin as being suspicious with such derogatory language such as Ahole, punks, and such statements as this guy is up to no good, and they always get away. He further emphasized his ill will towards Trayvon Martin as being a suspect. He then disregarded the advice of the police and his instructions as a community watch captain to pursue Trayvon Martin, whom he considered in derogatory terms, with a deadly weapon. That deadly weapon further inferred his intent to do serious harm to his described suspect, by already having it loaded and in the position to dislodge it. The single purpose was to not let him get away, with what he perceived in his own depraved mind being criminal activity.
An act is " imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind" if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. A person of ordinary judgement would know reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another (Trayvon Martin viewed Zimmerman as a serious threat and Zimmerman also followed Trayvon Martin with a Deady weapon as the pursuer) which speaks for itself about who was in imminent danger. Zimmerman was also obsessed with him escaping and continued the pursuit. There is no evidence he didn't or Tryvon circled back. There is solid evidence that Trayvon ran from Zimmerman or tried to lose him.
2 is done from ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent (Ahole,punk, up to no good, suspect) speaks for itself.
3. is such of a nature, that act itself indicates an indifference to humanlife. Again it speaks for itself in Zimmerman's actions before hunting down his prey and after, referring to Martin as the suspect and showing no remorse after killing him.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove George Zimmerman had intent to cause Death.
Deadly Weapon Doctrine takes effect and is proven George Zimmerman used a fire arm to committ a criminal act. proven
Justifiable Homicide in self defense. not proven because George Zimmerman was the aggressor. There is no evidence Trayvon Martin started the provocation. The aggressor does not have all the rights of a non aggressor if he or she started the provocation. They have to use all alternative means before resorting to Deadly force or use of a fire arm, which George Zimmerman did not do. He could have avoided the situation if he stayed in his vehicle, did not pursue Trayvon or told Martin who he was and why he was following him.
Therefore George Zimmerman is guilty as Hell of murder!
dkf
(37,305 posts)even read the last paragraph of why I said it was not self defense? It goes all along with George Zimmerman being the aggressor if he pursue Trayvon Martin with a depraved heart.
In order for you to continue your line of logic, You would have to show evidence Trayvon Martin actually circled back and attacked Zimmerman. You have no such proof Martin did that except the guy you are trying to make excuses for. Not even Good can testify to your assertion. So why do you keep trying to make such a leap?
And there is no evidence to say George Zimmerman ever stopped pursuing Martin except his words. That is not evidence whatsoever. If he told you a cow leaped over the Moon, you probably would think that is evidence from a proven liar like Zimmerman, which has already been proven in this case on certain matters.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If you have tons of cases of murderers where the victim isn't around to testify, and the murderer can use the "template" that Zimmerman is providing them now to say that they were killing the victim in "self defense", don't people start to see the problem with this precedent being set?
There's too many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story that don't allow for the facts to play out the way he describes them in reality. Does that convict him on a murder charge where we can show he had the intent to kill? Maybe not, but I think minimally manslaughter is required in this case, as if it weren't for Zimmerman following him, this death wouldn't have happened. Self defense implies that someone is trying to protect themselves from an attack from someone else, and hasn't done anything to provoke it. I just don't see that being established here. The facts show that Zimmerman had done plenty of things that can be construed to provoke any kind of attack that Martin might have done that in effect would have been Trayvon's effort to "stand his ground".
Sancho
(9,173 posts)I think that GZ (heard to say, "what are you doing here" grabbed TM (heard to say, "let me go" , maybe from behind as TM tried to get away. They slipped on the wet grass. TM's head butted GZ's nose and GZ's head hit the sidewalk or water meter when they fell.
TM simply tried to get up and get away from GZ who was holding him while they rolled on the grass. When TM tried to stand, GZ grabbed his hoodie (tie string was pulled out ) and then GZ pulled out his gun and shot him while tugging on TM's hoodie to hold him from getting away.
I don't see evidence that TM or GZ threw any punches. Neither had blood or bruises on their hands or arms (from blocking punches). They may have been on the ground while rolling around, but could have been trying to stand up when the shooting occurred. The rest of the Herald's conclusions are pretty good.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)1monster
(11,045 posts)Chico Man
(3,001 posts)To frame this in such a way and to ignore the laws in question. Seems like they want to start riots.
If Zimmerman ever disobeyed a police order or broke the law in pursuing Martin, don't you think this case would have been over a long time ago?
John2
(2,730 posts)law. He is not a police officer and it is bad to start telling people thay can just follow people around for no reason. Who ever is feeding you that bull, is going to get you in trouble with stalking or harrassment laws. Whats more, Zimmerman killed a person, with a deadly instrument. Zimmerman could walk up on you and claim self defense if you resist him too. All you have to do is give him a few injuries, so he can just blow you away.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Why this trial then? Oh wait, a grand racist conspiracy right?
Ps- can you cite the law he broke? Maybe the prosecution missed it?
Civilization2
(649 posts)badge, no uniform. He is the aggressor and he was defended against by the teen. Sadly, and more than a little pathetically, he could not win a fist fight with a teenager, and had to pull his concealed gun to win the fight he started.
Just who was standing their ground?
The law works for the attacked they guy minding his own business, no?
dkf
(37,305 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)You can't come to a conclusion on this matter unless you speculate which the jury is not allowed to do.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)if I were on his jury every expert witness who testified that his lies were possible would be ignored by me. Their testimony would all be irrelevant in my mind. They were testifying that a pack of lies, from a proven liar, were possible.
Sorry no sale.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Little Star
(17,055 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Zimmerman and team are under no obligation to provide proof of his innocence.
The funny thing is the prosecution's evidence backs up Zimmerman. Most of the testimony was by prosecution witnesses.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome George Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.
George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)I don't see how a jury reading those instructions can possibly convict, despite the fact that I think he is guilty of manslaughter.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)one of them is dead and the other is a f**king liar I'll use my common sense in conjunction with the law if I'm on that jury.
Do you think jurors shouldn't use their common sense at all? If you do, then you should be glad we have never been on a jury together.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)onenote
(45,980 posts)While it was once a common part of the closing charge to the jury that if they disbelieve any part of witnesses testimony they should disbelieve all of it, it has become disfavored. As one of the leading treatises on criminal jury instructions stated in 2000, "Given this strong trend to refrain from charging the jury on (falsus uno), it is recommended that no instruction be given but rather that a general instruction on credibility be given and that this issue be left to the argument of counsel.
The instruction given to the Zimmerman jury on credibility reflects the current standard:
You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)started the physical contact, period.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)And he wasn't instructed, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".
No one knows who started the physical contact, other than Zimmerman.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Complete foolishness. But then it is backward day.
onenote
(45,980 posts)Physical contact is physical contact. And, sadly, the evidence as to what occurred next (as opposed to what we might believe occurred next) is sketchy.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)business. Zimmerman had 100% control to keep both individuals safe and free from confrontation by staying in his vehicle. Travon had no such option. That is a fact.
Have a nice day.
dkf
(37,305 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)Why do you think your interpretation of the law is correct and everybodyelse is wrong? In everyone of your rebuttals, you have jump to conclusions trying to support George Zimmerman. I don't see where you followed the law at all?
Number one: George Zimmerman does not have a right to just follow a teenager not breaking any laws at night. I don't know what country, that you think you live in?
Number two; everything depends on the intent of a person. The law is much more complex than just saying everyone has the right to be in a certain place. It depends on the intent. If George Zimmerman intended to be at a certain place because of Trayvon Martin, then it is stalking or harrassment. If he intended to be at a certain place to apprehend Trayvon Martin, that would make all the difference than just being at a certain place because you have a legal right to be there. I hope you understood that logic?
Trayvon Martin had the right to go to a 711 and buy a drink or skittles and return home without being stalked or harrassed by George Zimmerman. Are you following that logic, so far?
It becomes a provocation when George Zimmeran inteferes with that right because he is not a police officer. You still following the logic? He can be eyes and ears, but he does not have the right to pursue or hinder Trayvon Martin's right to go to the store and safely return home.
Trayvon Martin being a 17 year old kid had every right to become apprehensive of George Zimmerman when he stalked or even observed Martin from his vehicle, without identifying himself. Even if Martin tried to find out why Zimmerman was following, would make Martin even more apprehensive if Zimmerman still refused to identify himself.
That apprehension from a teenager can reasonably turn to fear of imminent danger from that person. The evidence shows exactly that. Trayvon Martin ran at first from Zimmerman. That is the part you conveniently leave out of your defense for Zimmerman in justfication of Martin's action. You conveniently jump to a conclusion Martin circled back and slugged Zimmerman. You have no such evidence of that except the word of George Zimmerman. Now who is inventing evidence?
The only thing that Jenteal stated was Martin saw Zimmerman again after losing him. Everything Jenteal says, supports Zimmerman caught up with Martin and attacked him by surprise. Including his cell phone abruptly falling to the wet grass and apparently losing connection. Why are you following me and get off me, supports it. The sounds of rolling in wet grass supports it. You still following me?
If Zimmerman is the aggressor, he never had a right to self defense, even if Martin was beating the crap out of him. The reason why is because Zimmerman followed Martin with a loaded gun, with the safety off. That puts you in imminent danger of your life. You can use whatever force you want, including breaking his nose or cracking his skull to fight him off. You still following me?
The bottomline is Zimmerman's life was never in danger despite his claims because it is unreasonable to believe so. He is full of shit and so are his supporters. Trayvon Martin's life was in imminent danger and the results proved it. Zimmerman resorted to no means of defending himself except with the gun he had already loaded and released the safety on it. He is guilty of cold blooded murder of a 17 year old boy period. A 17 year old boy, 42 pounds lighter, he claims was beating him to death. None of his injuries indicated that was the case or were they life threatening, but that one gun shot sure was.
John2
(2,730 posts)pursued Martin whether you like it or not. There is clear evidence what he thought about Martin also. The defense tried their best to make claims Zimmerman had no ill feelings towards Martin. They failed miserably. There is also clear evidence Martin ran when he saw Zimmerman from Zimmerman's own words to the 911 operator.
You can continue the evidence with what Martin said to Jenteal, which proved that he had concerns about Zimmerman following him and that was why he try to lose him. That is evidence that you can't refute. It all points to provocation and the events that followed. The only evidence in question is Zimmerman's fabricated lies. No matter what John Good saw, he can't help Zimmerman there either, because he can't testify to who started the fight. Zimmerman's use of a gun even makes it more difficult, including the difference in physical capacity. The Defense went a long way in trying to get around that too, but the photo of Trayvon Martin speaks for itself. He was not that much of a physical speciman. In fact, Martin was pretty slim. Zimmerman was 42 pounds heavier. Most people by now can see this man is a liar. And if they had thrown in his past aggressive history of following persons while playing police, it would have been a slam dunk. He was overly aggressive with a motorist in the same manner playing cop.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Or is that what you want to believe?
Response to Chico Man (Reply #38)
dkf This message was self-deleted by its author.
Baitball Blogger
(51,656 posts)This is a county, which to this day, is involved in a 21st Century version of segregation.
Some people do get free passes based on the people they know.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)Reading this post is disheartening. Justifying the actions of Zimmerman astonish me. When did we dive through the looking glass such that everything is upside down and backwards?
I taught my daughter to run and call for help if a stranger were following her. I also taught her to fight like hell if she needed to. The idea that the kid could not protect himself from that threat is...wrong...and simply Bull. Shit.
Zimmerman in fear? He could have driven away any time. He could have stopped following that kid any time. His actions show: he was not afraid; he was out for blood.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)10 and 8 year old daughters to scream FIRE because a lot of people won't respond to the screams of "help" and will immediately close doors, close eyes, put their hands over their ears or just ignore. Screaming FIRE most people will respond post haste.
I agree with you 100%!
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)The Condo was not Travon's father's according to the young lady who testified. She said it was Travon's father's girlfriend's condo.
underpants
(194,726 posts)they ran out and declared victory from day 1
any guilty verdict will be met with (like all other "issues" cries of victimization ....and bleeding more money out of the dashboard believers (like all other "issues"
a not guilty verdict will me heralded as their righteousness confirmed (this is typical step 3 after victimization and "follow ME out of the wilderness"
Either way Zimmerman will be forgotten by them by Labor Day
malaise
(292,484 posts)Guilty as charged
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)let's hope.
no Z dna found on TM''s hands. Fact no TM's dna found on Z's gun.
Fact TM asked Z why was he following him thereafter words were exchanged. Since no Z dna was found on TM's hands-fist, what did he use to break Z's nose and pound Z's head on the concrete?
Politicub
(12,327 posts)The straight on, point blank gunshot wound could mean that Zimmerman was on top of TM holding his arms down. From there, got his gun, put it against TM's chest and pulled the trigger as he looked at TM's terror-filled eyes.
The screaming stops immediately after the gun shot.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.
4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.
At what point did Zimmerman get out of his car, before or after the phone call to the police where they told him not to chase and pursue?
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)or develop their own theory based on common sense and gut feel is ridiculous. They are free to form their opinion anyway they wish as long as they don't violate the sequester and get caught doing it. Jury instructions are a guide and a plea to the conscience to apply the letter of the law, and only consider evidence presented in court, but we all know what the reality is. Some jurors may choose to adhere to the instructions and evidence presented, while others may go further by filling in the blanks based on their common sense or life experience. And they may still come to the same conclusion, or opposite one.
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)I agree with about every point this man made here.
I think the Rambo mentality overpowered Zimmerman's common sense and caused him to believe, that he had a right to stalk and hunt down this teenager, because his victim/prey was a young African American. Too much input from Zimmerman's environment coupled with his Wanna-be Cop Syndrome caused him to take classes that taught him to do exactly what he did. He went and bought a gun, he used his automobile like a tree stand and when he saw his prey walking by, he put his training and cheap gun to use. He went out and did what the hate mongers on Clear Channel and Fox and probably all his friends and family had indicated to him was okay. The Florida lawmakers had given the Zimmermans of the world licenses to play vigilante, with that crazy "stand your ground law." Zimmerman waited for a victim, he was prepared to stalk and possibly kill his victim and he followed through. Sounds like at least second degree murder to me. How many nights had Zimmerman sat out in his car waiting for someone like this teenager to come along. How many other neighborhoods did Zimmy lay in ambush in, in his car with his Kel-Tec automatic before the night he did the deed? Why wouldn't we put a man like Zimmerman away, for a very long time, in the name of public safety? If a Black man had acted out the same scenario and committed the same crime on a 17 year old white kid, I believe he'd have been arrested on the spot and tried for murder one.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)I went to a neighborhood watch meeting. The police officer conducting the meeting made a suggestion to those who were there. He told us if we have a gun and felt we were in fear of someone entering our house and doing us harm, we should fire a warning shot into the baseboard of our house and then shoot the dude if need be. he then said shooting the warning shot could be done either before or after you shoot the dude????
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)that is not the same as saying "do not take the garbage out".
Also, a 911 dispatcher is not "the police".
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)Let's play a game.
If I see a suspicious character in my neighborhood and call 9-11 and I tell the police dispatcher I want to follow him and he tells me "we don't need you to do that" should I follow said character?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Why not be accurate and phrase it as follows:-
3. The man was told by the 911 dispatcher that "we don't need you" to follow the teen.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,615 posts)If a trained police dispatcher tells you "we don't need you to do that" wouldn't the logical inference be that you shouldn't do that.
It is logical to assume that the police dispatcher gave what appears to be this pro forma instruction because they are trained to know that citizens following people they deem to be suspicious might not end up well for the person doing the following or the person being followed.
Seems this is a text book case for not taking the law into your own hands.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And if they were why did the prosecution need to fight for lesser charges included in the verdict.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)The list above are neither. Well, Some are. Some are not.
CatWoman
(80,230 posts)why don't you school us idiots as to just what the "facts" are????
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)"The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen"
Is this true? Really?
Why not phrase it like this?
"This dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn't need him to follow Trayvon."
Oh right.. It's wont incite anger and get people into a frenzy like the original statement will!!
So what is the point of the OP?
CatWoman
(80,230 posts)
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)And I've said all along only two people know what happened, one of them is dead.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)But why are we to believe that Trayvon would tell the absolute truth. Because he got shot? What if he survived? What would his testimony be? Would it differ from John Good? Would it simply amount to one word against another?
Everyone is happy to Zimmerman a liar and maybe he is. I can accept that. Why can no one accept that Trayvon was a human and not an angel subject to all the shortcomings of any other human?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)Speculating on what a DEAD KID might have said shows me that while trying to twist in contortions, your cheese has slid of your cracker.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)What Trayvon might have said.
But I guess they are really assuming what Trayvon would say based on the two being the only two witnesses. But that's not the case. Their are more than two witnesses. Specifically, John Good.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)I got to admit. That's a good one
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)You didn't watch the trial.
Simple as that.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)
Patiod
(11,816 posts)So, conviction or not, his life is ruined.
He was an angry gun-loving asshole with a proven background of anger management issues and problems with the police, and now he'll never be able to sleep soundly or walk anywhere without looking over his shoulder. Anywhere he goes, he'll have to worry about someone wanted to hurt him. He'll never be able to go out in public without being humiliated or harassed.
And that is an excellent, fitting punishment for a bitter, twisted soul and his bad choices.
It's just a shame that a promising young life was cut off and Martin's family has to suffer, too. And it's a shame that this piss-poor ill-conceived law still stands. And that angry assholes like Zimmerman are allowed to carry guns.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Looking at the case from the perspective of the law, not raw emotion.
I never once saw them defend Zimmerman. If they are defending anything it is the reputation of DU as a place of reasoned debate, and not a bandwagon of emotional group thinkers.
CatWoman
(80,230 posts)and always on the losing side......
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Patiod
(11,816 posts)But even though he'll get to live, at least he won't live well.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Response to kentuck (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)that he was told by the dispatcher to stay in his car, and he freely chose not to obey that directive. If he had done that one little thing, none of this would have happened.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Zimmerman appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.
Nothing can change that simple fact.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible for the outcome.
I know that sounds harsh or flippant. But I really do feel like this is what the whole case comes down to.
— Josh Marshall
Patiod
(11,816 posts)It's a sad day for this country.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)wow, just wow
And outside the Siminole County Court House, the sounds of Democracy cry out into the night tonight.
Thank you Kentuck for this from the Miami Herald. Can't be any clearer than that. Kindergartners can understand this.
"There may be a development,"... interupted by a damn commercial. Maybe they have decided to put off till tomorrow? Maybe a verdict? I pray for justice!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)
Kablooie
(19,034 posts)Damn it!
TRAVON WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENSE WITHOUT QUESTION.
You can't have both parties acting in self defense.
Something is seriously wrong here.
DallasNE
(7,953 posts)Where I called this verdict as providing the blueprint for how to get away with murder. This is something lawmakers are going to have to grapple with.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,368 posts)You, your friends, and family may purger themselves without fear of penalty. It's beyond belief. And the fact that so many of the usual suspects have been trashing the dead kid and his friends and the life he might have lived is just more evidence that our country is hopelessly polarized. I'm only relieved to be with the group that sympathizes with Trayvon and his family.
lib87
(535 posts)If a man follows you in his car at night, gets out and confronts you with a gun, your best bet is to let the man with the gun have his way with you.
Oh America smh.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,368 posts)and he kept showing up lurking like Zimmerman did, I should have a right to defend myself against his clear ill will.
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)I was sure that it would be manslaughter at the very least. Reverse the races and I'm about positive of a different verdict.
With some of the things going on it's almost like we're going back to the 50s, just a very bad vibe.
defacto7
(14,159 posts)and injustice wins again.
lupinella
(365 posts)Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)Peace and love to Trayvon's family and friends.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)Watch your back peeps.