During the Zimmerman trial, we have had DUers argue for his acquittal, which, of course, happened...

[Rilgin]

184. Hard to question your assumptions

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Yes, all cases are different. Every single fact is different in every confrontation, killing, justifiable self defense and unjustifiable self defense. The main similarity is someone came back to a situation that they had previously avoided. That was your main point and it is clearly not true. People sometimes avoid and sometimes confront situations and sometimes come back after avoiding a situation. Young men generally are more prone to confronting problems directly than older men.

Everything you said about Travon could be said about the SF victim with only minor situational changes. There was no prior interaction between the two. None. The Victim didn't know who the shooter was was, or why he had confronted him earlier. There was no prior history between the two, not even a single exchange or interaction. The rest is only your opinion that Travon felt fear and intimidation, and did not later act out of either foolish bravado or "challenges. I would add that he could have acted in righteous igdination of being followed.

You have your mind made up on the story you believe. I understand that. It leads you to declare with authority some facts that are not facts just stories.

One of these was your statement that Travon did not make it home as a fact rather than a theory For me its just a possible explanation of what occurred, one of many. You, however, assert the converse as proven even though there is absolutely no evidence as to where he was after he ran and eluded Zimmerman. There are no footprints videos, or witnesses.

I have spent a lot of time looking at the evidence mostly to see if you could actually prove something (I also have spent way too much time reading JFK arguments). I would say right back at you with respect to looking at the evidence.

The only thing I think might be provable is corresponding evidence/testimony in 2 calls as what appears to have happenned at SOME POINT. However, that point was before the final fatal confrontation.

The points of agreement relate to GZ tellin the dispatcher that the guy he has been following has run towards the back gate and he can not see him. Similarly Rachel Jeantel testified that TM told her that he was going to elude the guy following him and then she said she heard wind. She also testified that he then told her that he had in fact gotten away. At some point the phone was hung up. She called a little later and then he said he was just by his father's house which is if you look at a map by the back gate which is the direction where GZ said TM ran. Do I know exactly where he was when he said he was almost home after being followed and getting away. No. I think thre are a few possibilities. You however have a 100% certainty that it was only his distance from the 711 in stating that after he had run from a guy who was following him. This is similar to your claim of knowledge of what Travon felt or was thinking that night without any evidence.

I think unless GZ was a total fraud and acted out the 911 call (which some believe), its pretty clear that TM approached the car where GZ was in and then ran and got away from GZ. GZ got out of the car and tried to chase him but lost him at which time he was told not to try to follow.
The fatal confrontation occurred minutes later.

There are a number of possibilities for where TM was during that time. There is no definitive proof and no definite evidence. The main possibilities are (1) he got to his house and turned around for his own reasons to confront the guy who had followed him (2) he did not want to lead this guy to his house and hid and then either GZ found him, TM decided to confront GZ about why he was following him or they ran into each other accidently when TM tried to get home or (3) TM eluded GZ by running the wrong way or got lost and then eiher GZ found him or they ran int0 each other accidently. There is no proof of which of these three occurred. No video, photos, witnesses, or footpritnts.

The ONLY evidence bearing on this is GZ's and Rachel's testimony and GZ's is self interested and should be discounted. Rachel's testimony is not definitive but (combined with the fact that both testimonies see to support TM getting away towards the back gate) better supports (but again does not definitely prove) that TM almost made it home and then came back to confront GZ about why he was following him. He did not know GZ had a gun and was a young man as pointed out by me before and young men (of all races) often respond in a variety of ways to conflicts with others. Please note that if he went back to confront GZ this would NOT be doing anything illegal or wrong. He certainly was entitled to ask GZ why he was following him. Again there is very little proof as to what actually occurred when they finally did engage which led to TM's death. GZ might still have been the agressor. All there is is conjecture and that is not enough for criminal verdicts.

For yourself, you would strengthen your arguments by not assuming that others do not know the evidence and by seperating your opinion from fact. There is no proof (although some evidence) that GZ made it home However, there is also no proof and absolutely no evidence that TM did not want to lead the guy following him to his house. You do not know his internal thought process and there is no absolute or convincing evidence as to whether TM felt intimated and in fear (your theory) and was scared to go home or whether after getting home, he decided to return to confront the guy who followed him as to why he was following him. There is no way of knowing what or who precisely started the fight.

One last point. You did a fair job explaining the concept of self defense as an affirmative defense. I can say that because I am a lawyer although not a criminal lawyer. Your explanation showed you are either a lawyer or did decent research. However, you did not research Florida law.
I have not done in depth research but I believe Florida self defense law works differently than most states (most rational states). I believe that in florida, the prosecution has to disprove self defense as an element of the crime. This is the main reason many knowledgable lawyers (which I read) thought it would be a difficult case. Further in most jurisdictions even if someone is an early agressor, one can regain the ability to act in self defense.

Personally, I think it might have been possible to make a case for manslaughter based on GZ carrying a gun while on neigborhood watch but it would be an unusual argument. I mostly see this as a problem with guns and the fact that humans confront each other in situations that breed emotion and uncertainty and the chances of a tragedy are accelerated if one of the human is carrying a gun.