General Discussion

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)

111. No, not at all

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:54 PM

Jun 2013

Simply hoping you would read through that thread with an open mind.

Edit to add: It is very unfortunate that you chose not to read through the thread with an open mind. after reading your posts on this subject I did not expect you to read and consider.

Please respond to this so you can have the last word and have a great afternoon!

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

But Who STARTED The Altercation Between Martin and Zimmerman? [View all] Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 OP

Zimmerman, when he got out of his car. Possibly when he was stalking Martin from his car. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #1

I Agree, but..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #3

I really haven't followed it all that closely rrneck Jun 2013 #7

But Since it's an Affirmative Defense for Self Defense and not Stand Your Ground... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #10

"Zimmerman HAS TO PROVE it was self defense" B2G Jun 2013 #14

Then I'm misunderstanding the burden of proof here... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #15

To prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt B2G Jun 2013 #20

no, the defense has to prove self-defense TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #49

I would love to see a link that supports that. B2G Jun 2013 #58

there's plenty of them in threads right here TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #75

There is subtle nuance at play here Kennah Jun 2013 #79

I'm fairly certain the term Jenoch Jun 2013 #82

This post was helpful to me. dkf Jun 2013 #108

Is there a reasonable doubt about who killed Martin? Is there a reasonable doubt that he would Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #88

Well, naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #89

lol. this is the kind of stupid shit white folks are willing Solomon Jun 2013 #92

What do you mean? naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #93

So Zimmerman's story is: Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #95

Nope naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #98

in Rachel's testimony from her phone call, Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #103

I thought he used Jenoch Jun 2013 #109

I agree that's what he says he was doing pokerfan Jun 2013 #104

If are judicial system was built on guilty until proved innocent. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #33

It is the prosecution Jenoch Jun 2013 #83

Not true. Once the state proves or he conceiveds he killed someone... Deep13 Jun 2013 #105

This post helped me... dkf Jun 2013 #107

even if Trayvon threw the first punch, there is little evidence to justify the use of the gun. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #26

I think you are totally wrong on that. naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #90

By the extent of his injuries, and the testimony of people who saw Zimmerman on top Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #100

Does it have to be a punch? What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep him from walking away? arcane1 Jun 2013 #56

I think so....any physical contact....My God, why didn't that idiot just identify himself! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #62

I think because he was hunting a black man. That's the opinion I get of Zimmerman. Maraya1969 Jun 2013 #73

Agreed. Zimmerman began following Martin, armed, in a threatening manner... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #46

Kick! hedgehog Jun 2013 #2

I don't know what that means. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #4

A reply bumps a thread up to the top of the page again. That's called a "Kick". Recursion Jun 2013 #6

Oh, ok!!! Well tyvm!!!! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #8

Nobody saw. That's a problem for the prosecution. Recursion Jun 2013 #5

It is actually a much bigger problem for the defense Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #38

And a preponderance of the evidence just means "it's more likely I'm telling the truth than lying" Recursion Jun 2013 #39

When he was the one who initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #42

We don't know who initiated the conflict Recursion Jun 2013 #43

We KNOW Zimmerman initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #44

"Who touched who" is who initiated the conflict. Z had a right to do what he did up until the moment Recursion Jun 2013 #45

No. He had no legal right to follow Martin. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #47

Yes, he did. He had every right to be on that sidewalk too, even though he's a douchebag Recursion Jun 2013 #48

Yes, but he cannot stalk... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #51

Interesting legal theory Recursion Jun 2013 #52

My conclusion as well. And there are lots of them, and just about everyone is a gun lover. Hoyt Jun 2013 #102

doubtful TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #59

Thanks.....I really have no idea which way that will go so far.... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #61

From my point of view the altercation began long before the first punch etherealtruth Jun 2013 #9

I agree. But that doesn't seem to be the legal view. It seems to be the fist fight. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #11

How does that work? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #34

But that is not what happened in this case Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #40

Of course it would need to be proven (or admitted) that the person was STALKING him etherealtruth Jun 2013 #53

There is a specific defintion of stalking and it is not as you think it is. It is also not Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #66

Of course it as a specific legal meaning etherealtruth Jun 2013 #69

Then the law does apply joeglow3 Jun 2013 #70

What in the world are you babbling about? etherealtruth Jun 2013 #71

Nice change of tactic. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #97

This is a change of tactic etherealtruth Jun 2013 #106

Double down, huh? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #110

No, not at all etherealtruth Jun 2013 #111

I read through much of it joeglow3 Jun 2013 #112

I agree. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #50

I get the impression that the defense is aiming for "reasonable doubt" Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #12

So they are just trying to muddy the water....or show that the water is unfailingly muddied. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #17

That's how I see it. I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #24

The defense doesn't have to try to muddy the waters. adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #67

Z claims TM caught him by surprise and clocked him first magellan Jun 2013 #13

I don't think a defendant's word alone can be accepted as proof without additional evidence/backup. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #19

I agree magellan Jun 2013 #21

What? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #30

What other way would u have it? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #35

If the jury is swayed to believe he was possibly in fear for his life, yes magellan Jun 2013 #36

Was Z's blood on the gun? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #57

I think it was. n/t magellan Jun 2013 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #21

Z hasn't claimed anything yet under oath. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #25

I don't think the jury will buy a self-defense defense. It just isn't clean enough. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #27

"She may have come across in many ways, but not as a liar." Jenoch Jun 2013 #84

I think that's going to be a problem YarnAddict Jun 2013 #87

did you think she was lying about her conversation with Trayvon? Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #99

I didn't see that testimony. Jenoch Jun 2013 #101

Zimmerman, when he got out of his car and ignored dispatcher. grasswire Jun 2013 #16

This is not what Zimmerman maintains. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #31

18 seconds after he got out of the car he agreed with the operator csziggy Jun 2013 #68

THat's my problem with this MNBrewer Jun 2013 #18

That's a blind spot in the case. nyquil_man Jun 2013 #23

and what the medical examiner will tell us Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #28

Indeed. nt nyquil_man Jun 2013 #54

How important is knowing the initiator in terms of reasonable doubt? HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #29

I thought being the initiator eliminated self defense. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #32

Your analogy sounds strange to me. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #41

Yes and no. X_Digger Jun 2013 #72

Not the way the laws are written. Which is the problem. DirkGently Jun 2013 #37

Thanks for the clarification. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #55

If you walk away from a fight...without stitches...or a trip to the hospital.....come on..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #60

I understand. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #63

The idead behind defending yourself naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #91

Which one of them was the one that was looking for trouble? hobbit709 Jun 2013 #64

Easy. Zimmerman when he left the car and approached Martin. on point Jun 2013 #65

It is impossible to know. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply engaging in conjecture. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #74

Zimmerman by playing amateur cop. Starry Messenger Jun 2013 #78

It's obvious. Zimmerman. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #80

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #85

No. FS 776 doesn't raise that. flvegan Jun 2013 #81

The chances of conviction are based on the jury. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #86

keep heaven05 Jun 2013 #94

I'll admit I'm not following this as closely as some.... tarheelsunc Jun 2013 #96