|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
Quote:
I've tried to stay away from this.. too much media bias for me. can't trust what they tell me and I'm not sitting in the court hearing the facts for myself so who knows fact from fiction.
I sure don't.
..feel the same way. It may have been self defense, but Zimmerman should've just stayed in his car.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Jc
I do not know the details of this case, but I feel that if TM was a female, there would be no acquital. Stalking someone on a dark street at night, close enough to get in their personal space is an extremely aggressive act, and I cant for one second see how he can claim self defense. He chose to stalk that kid even after he was told not to.
Last edited by EveDawg; 06/30/13 08:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Jc
I do not know the details of this case, but I feel that if TM was a female, there would be no acquital. Stalking someone on a dark street at night, close enough to get in their personal space is an extremely aggressive act, and I cant for one second see how he ca n claim self defense. He chose to stalk that kid even after he was told not to.
Problem is, is that REALLY what happened? Or is that what you read happened?
I only ask because I don't know. I know the media has painted it as that......in fact, they had painted it as an open and shut case.
We know Z followed T, called 911, and was told to quit following him because cops were on the way.
After that - we don't know what happened (to my knowledge).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Problem is, is that REALLY what happened? Or is that what you read happened?
Hard to argue that this is not what happened. Not saying that it's a 100% certainty that it did, but there's not much evidence in the way of suggesting it.
There is definitely mystery to what happened when the two met up. That's kind of the crux of the issue.
But it's a tough sell to say that Zimmerman was advised to stop following him, stopped following him, but continued to keep walking away from his car and happened to get attacked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
Speaking as a minority, IS that what happened? I don't know. You don't know. All we know is what the media has said in the last year. You know.....the doctored NBC 911 call, the "white hispanic"........(what's that? Is Obama a white black? Or a black white?)
Throw race out of it. Look at the FACTS. I hope and pray the jury does that, and leaves race out of it. I'm not say Z is guilty, I'm not saying he's not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
But what about a 'white hispanic'?
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
Speaking as a minority, IS that what happened? I don't know. You don't know. All we know is what the media has said in the last year. You know.....the doctored NBC 911 call, the "white hispanic"........(what's that? Is Obama a white black? Or a black white?)
Throw race out of it. Look at the FACTS. I hope and pray the jury does that, and leaves race out of it. I'm not say Z is guilty, I'm not saying he's not guilty.
Jeantel said Trayvon knew Zimmerman was following him. So yes, that is what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
Speaking as a minority, IS that what happened? I don't know. You don't know. All we know is what the media has said in the last year. You know.....the doctored NBC 911 call, the "white hispanic"........(what's that? Is Obama a white black? Or a black white?)
Throw race out of it. Look at the FACTS. I hope and pray the jury does that, and leaves race out of it. I'm not say Z is guilty, I'm not saying he's not guilty.
Jeantel said Trayvon knew Zimmerman was following him. So yes, that is what happened.
I'm not saying he was or wasn't being followed, but if you are basing that he definitively was on the mess of a testimony she gave you are certainly one of the few. I don't think a lot of juries are going to put a lot of faith into her. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My understanding is that Zimmerman stopped following and returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked by Martin who had apparently doubled back. If thats wrong, I might have to rethink what I think about this. But, even if its not true and Zimmerman continued to follow, its not an excuse to attack him unless Martin was threatened / accosted. Both men had the right to walk down the street, regardless of the other's perception of why they were out there.
Speaking as a minority, you start to feel very threatened when you're followed by a white guy who is clearly following you.
Speaking as a minority, IS that what happened? I don't know. You don't know. All we know is what the media has said in the last year. You know.....the doctored NBC 911 call, the "white hispanic"........(what's that? Is Obama a white black? Or a black white?)
Throw race out of it. Look at the FACTS. I hope and pray the jury does that, and leaves race out of it. I'm not say Z is guilty, I'm not saying he's not guilty.
Jeantel said Trayvon knew Zimmerman was following him. So yes, that is what happened.
I'm not saying he was or wasn't being followed, but if you are basing that he definitively was on the mess of a testimony she gave you are certainly one of the few. I don't think a lot of juries are going to put a lot of faith into her.
Jeantel spoke perfectly fine English for those who can understand the language. Her only real misstep was saying that "cracker" was not a derogative term for white people, but descriptive. If you're basing her message on how she spoke rather than what she said than you should probably just base the case on what Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage say rather than the person who was talking with him right before he died.
Also, you're probably right. Zimmerman will most likely get off because Man2 is going to be hard to prove with no good eye witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Jeantel spoke perfectly fine English for those who can understand the language. Her only real misstep was saying that "cracker" was not a derogative term for white people, but descriptive. If you're basing her message on how she spoke rather than what she said than you should probably just base the case on what Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage say rather than the person who was talking with him right before he died.
Also, you're probably right. Zimmerman will most likely get off because Man2 is going to be hard to prove with no good eye witnesses.
You sure like to put words into peoples mouths. I never stated she didn't speak clearly enough to understand. I understood her fine. Her cracker comment was stupid, sure, but the biggest problem I would have if I was on a jury was her demeanor. She did not seem to want to be there, almost inconvenienced by it. That to me hits credibility - why wouldn't she want to be there to help in the prosecution of someone who killed a friend?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
One of the few very hard facts we have in this case, is that wherever and however the physical confrontation took place, it was NOT immediately after Z exited his vehicle.
There is somewhere between 10 and 30 seconds of sounds of movement, then he is told "we don't need you to do that". Around 10 or so seconds after this exceptionally weak instruction, Z ceases most activity. There is then somewhere around 90 to 120 seconds or more where nothing is going on while he gives directions.
There is no indication whether or not he ever got within 20 yards of Martin. In fact, if he had intruded upon his personal space, I would think there would have been some audible evidence.
Martin was headed home, and apparently eluded whatever "pursuit" there was. He could have gone home during that minute and a half or two minutes.
In some states, returning to the scene could be viewed as an aggressive act. Under Florida law, both men had the right to be in that place at that time. Virtually all law that I am familiar with would state that the initial "pursuit" is in no way a justification for any defense action, as the threat was ended. It's that vital one point five to two minutes while Z is giving directions to cops. There is no threat going on during that time, I really don't see how everybody ignores this.
Once they "came together" AFTER the phone call, we have little evidence of what happened. That Martin returned to the scene is fairly clear, but that is no more a provocation than Z getting out of his truck. If we can infer Z's "intent", we can do the same for Martin, and more accurately.
Z's injuries would appear to make self-defense a viable claim.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,857
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,857 |
Quote:
Stop reading/watching American media like Fox, CNN, NSNBC and start watching Al Jazeera and Russian Today. That'll help a lot in the future.
If this was supposed to be sarcasm, then ha ha..
if this was meant to be serious, I vote for this to be the dumbest post of the year so far.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Jeantel spoke perfectly fine English for those who can understand the language. Her only real misstep was saying that "cracker" was not a derogative term for white people, but descriptive. If you're basing her message on how she spoke rather than what she said than you should probably just base the case on what Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage say rather than the person who was talking with him right before he died.
Also, you're probably right. Zimmerman will most likely get off because Man2 is going to be hard to prove with no good eye witnesses.
You sure like to put words into peoples mouths. I never stated she didn't speak clearly enough to understand. I understood her fine. Her cracker comment was stupid, sure, but the biggest problem I would have if I was on a jury was her demeanor. She did not seem to want to be there, almost inconvenienced by it. That to me hits credibility - why wouldn't she want to be there to help in the prosecution of someone who killed a friend?
Because one of her friends was gunned down while she was talking to him. You know that can be a painful thing to deal with, right? So yeah, she probably didn't want to be there to relive the moment her friend got gunned downed. So yes, you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And yes, IF Z is found not guilty, he'll need to move far away. Far, far away. In fact, in order to have any semblance of a "life" again, he'll need to change his name, looks, or just move to a different country.
As it should be.
So then you are a big fan of vigilante justice and, court system be damned, if some segment of the population believes you are guilty, then you should not be able to safely live in your home... great.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Can you really claim self-defense when you provoke the situation?!
It was clear from the 911 call that he was chasing the guy. "Doctoring" my butt... I don't care about the doctored/racist angle HE WAS CHASING THE GUY AND HE HAD A GUN!
If anyone should be able to claim self-defense here, it's Martin. I can't believe this is even considered debateable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Was he chasing him down or just trying to see where he went so the police can find him? Last time I checked that is not illegal to do. It's not the smartest thing to do but I see people do it all the time when I watch Cops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
According to the law, if Martin attacked him, then it is self defense. It doesn't matter if he was provoked or not. If Martin attacked Zimmerman physically, was the first to attack physically, and Zimmerman had reason to think that his life was in danger, then he has a right to defend himself.
Like it or not, if events occurred as Zimmerman says, then he is not guilty. Photos and medical evidence released seem to indicate that his head had damage consistent with being bashed into a hard substance. If the only damage to Martin was the gunshot wound, then that would probably enhance his case.
As far as the young woman .... I didn't watch her testimony, but I read that she did not come off well. She almost seemed irritated having to testify, and she changed her story from previous versions.
The real key will be how she comes off to women. The jury is all female. The defense took a bit of a risk going after her aggressively .... but her attitude may also have been off-putting to women.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Oh come on that is total crap.
A guy is chasing you with a gun. "Wait, no, I just want to see where you're going I'm not going to hurt you."
Give me a break what B.S.
Then he gets to feel threatened? Are you kidding me?
Martin was acting in self-defense. Zimmerman, by his own admission, was running after him and tracked him down, it was clear that Martin was trying to get away from him. When he continued to follow, Martin tried to defend himself. That is self-defense.
Then, because Zimmerman chased down this guy who had done nothing wrong, then started to get his butt kicked, he gets to shoot him?
No, I'm sorry, you can't claim self-defense when the other person is defending themselves from you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
According to the law, if Martin attacked him, then it is self defense. It doesn't matter if he was provoked or not. If Martin attacked Zimmerman physically, was the first to attack physically, and Zimmerman had reason to think that his life was in danger, then he has a right to defend himself.
Did Martin have a right to think he was in danger of physical harm? Some stranger is chasing after you after you've done nothing that would make them want to go after you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
I know what most "experts" have said was the key witness for the prosecution.....she lied in court, and she gave her "beliefs" as fact. She said that "Cracker" when Travyon was saying it wasn't rooted in malcontent, but descriptive. She did not say anything that wasn't subjective.
Right because if Zimmerman had used the "n" word in his call to the police it wouldn't be rooted in malcontent...but just being descriptive.... 
Frankly....as others have said, I don't know all of the facts of the case. Personally I think Trayvon was a punk....and the type of kid who would aggressively react in this situation...But that does not mean he did. I think Zimmerman was a very frustrated glory seeker. Sure, he was told not to follow. But The police response had been so slow in prior calls, he had long ago lost faith in the system. But he is also stupid. Now if true that he was jumped...ok I can see the self defense....But that can't be proved. Of course it can't be proved that he instigated the confrontation either. (He very well may have) Both parties have a believable case in starting the incident. And I am sorry CHS...If you cannot see that...then you are letting race get in the way.
I see an acquittal in the future. Whether right or wrong....I believe it will be what is legal. All those looking for vigilante justice against Zimmerman are just as bad if not WORSE than Zimmerman himself.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
A guy is chasing you with a gun.
You assume it was known by all parties involved that Zimmerman had a gun...Mighty big assumption there....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
It DOESN'T MATTER!
A guy is chasing you. You don't know the guy. It is clear he is chasing you. You try to get away and he keeps following.
No assumptions required. Oh my goodness some of the stuff you guys make yourselves believe is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Oh come on that is total crap.
A guy is chasing you with a gun. "Wait, no, I just want to see where you're going I'm not going to hurt you."
Give me a break what B.S.
How do you know that Martin knew he had a gun? Zimmerman's gun was holstered and concealed under his coat. If I saw someone chasing me with a gun I would have continued to run the 100' feet or so home, hung up with my girlfriend and dialed 911 or at the very least ran to a neighbors house and banged on a door screaming for help.
Quote:
Then he gets to feel threatened? Are you kidding me?
No I'm not kidding you. If Martin circled back and confronted Zimmerman and then started to slam his head into concrete then yes Zimmerman would be able to defend himself.
Quote:
Martin was acting in self-defense. Zimmerman, by his own admission, was running after him and tracked him down, it was clear that Martin was trying to get away from him. When he continued to follow, Martin tried to defend himself. That is self-defense.
Then, because Zimmerman chased down this guy who had done nothing wrong, then started to get his butt kicked, he gets to shoot him?
No, I'm sorry, you can't claim self-defense when the other person is defending themselves from you.
No one knows the whole story and there is a lot of assumptions going on. You are assuming that Zimmerman chased down Martin to where Martin had to choice but to fight back. Zimmerman is claiming that he lost sight of Martin while on the phone with police and then on his way back Martin confronted and assaulted him.
Your statements suggest you think Zimmerman was chasing Martin with his gun out, cornered Martin and Martin fought back,. and if there was evidence to support that it went down like that then the Police would of arrested Zimmerman that night and it would not of taken a Special Prosecutor to file charges against him.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Can you really claim self-defense when you provoke the situation?!
It was clear from the 911 call that he was chasing the guy. "Doctoring" my butt... I don't care about the doctored/racist angle HE WAS CHASING THE GUY AND HE HAD A GUN!
If anyone should be able to claim self-defense here, it's Martin. I can't believe this is even considered debateable.
I don't know, honestly, I don't care. I just hope the truth is told, the facts are presented, and a jury renders a verdict. That's how our system works, I can have my own opinion but it's not for me to decide.
I will say this.. in the event that he is acquitted, if there are riots or even some random violent acts against uninvolved white or hispanic people, the perpetrators of those acts must be charged with hate crimes...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Oh come on that is total crap.
A guy is chasing you with a gun. "Wait, no, I just want to see where you're going I'm not going to hurt you."
Your credibility of the events is shot, since your making up your own version. The gun was concealed, so Martin had no idea he had a gun.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
Quote:
According to the law, if Martin attacked him, then it is self defense. It doesn't matter if he was provoked or not. If Martin attacked Zimmerman physically, was the first to attack physically, and Zimmerman had reason to think that his life was in danger, then he has a right to defend himself.
Did Martin have a right to think he was in danger of physical harm? Some stranger is chasing after you after you've done nothing that would make them want to go after you?
You still cannot attack someone for following you. You have to have a real reason to be afraid for your life, and that generally assumes you see a weapon, or hear a threat, or so on. In that same situation, I would not turn to confront the person following me. I would go to the closest door and beat on it, screaming for them to call the police. I might try to run from the situation. (again, with no idea whether or not the person following is armed or not, these are really the only rational options) The one thing I would not do is turn around and jump the guy following me. Who knows if the guy is armed. (as Zimmerman was)
If Martin turned back and jumped Zimmerman, then it doesn't really matter what Zimmerman did to provoke the confrontation.
If I go to a bar with you, and call you every name in the book, and stare at you in a threatening manner all night long, it doesn't give you the right to beat the living hell out of me. If I follow you out of the bar, it still doesn't give you the right to beat me to death. There has to be a legitimate threat for you to take physical action. Same thing with Martin. If he turned back to attack Zimmerman, then he wasn't in fear for his life. He may have been worried to an extent ..... maybe irritated ..... upset ...... but not in fear for his life. If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation. However it seems likely that he circled back and attacked Zimmerman .... and got the upper hand to the extent where Zimmerman was in fear for his life. If that is the case, then Zimmerman was within his rights. If this is not true, then he was not within his rights and should be convicted.
This is the entire case. Whichever side proves its case will win. Right now, and to someone who was originally in the "convict Zimmerman" camp, it seems as though the defense has, by far, the better case.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
Why would you ... especially if, as Steve opined, you thought the guy was armed?
Further, what determines "belief that someone intends to cause you physical harm"? Is following someone enough?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
I think he referring to before any confrontation, and is saying that if Martin feared for his life, he would not confront it, at least the average person would not. Most people would run away and/or find help. So he is presuming that initially, Martin was not fearing for his life.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
Why would you ... especially if, as Steve opined, you thought the guy was armed?
Further, what determines "belief that someone intends to cause you physical harm"? Is following someone enough?
Because you want to kick the guy's ass? I'm not saying its the decision that I would make, but that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly valid decision to make. If Martin thought Zimmerman was following him to mug him, Martin would be within his legal rights to kill Zimmerman.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
nrtu This thread as a whole shows how circumstantial this case is. There are no hard facts and a conviction or acquittal will solely rest on the quality of the witnesses who are on the stand and how believable they are to the jury. At this point, from what I have read and watched ( and because Rush Limbaugh told me so ), Zimmerman will be acquitted. There is no way if I were on the jury that I could convict him based on the evidence presented.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
Why would you ... especially if, as Steve opined, you thought the guy was armed?
Further, what determines "belief that someone intends to cause you physical harm"? Is following someone enough?
Because you want to kick the guy's ass? I'm not saying its the decision that I would make, but that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly valid decision to make. If Martin thought Zimmerman was following him to mug him, Martin would be within his legal rights to kill Zimmerman.
You can't just say "This guy was following me and I was in fear for my life." There has to be more than that. Simply being followed is not enough for a person to kill someone. There has to be a real and legitimate fear for their life. I doubt that being followed crosses that threshold. I mean, if it was, a person could go make a comment to a person, get that person to chase him, and then kill him, claiming that he felt his life was in danger.
There has to be more. Simply being followed is not enough.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If he was in fear for his life, he would have done everything possible to get away from the situation.
Why? He's permitted under law to physically confront someone who he believes wants to cause him physical harm. He has no duty to retreat.
Why would you ... especially if, as Steve opined, you thought the guy was armed?
Further, what determines "belief that someone intends to cause you physical harm"? Is following someone enough?
Because you want to kick the guy's ass? I'm not saying its the decision that I would make, but that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly valid decision to make. If Martin thought Zimmerman was following him to mug him, Martin would be within his legal rights to kill Zimmerman.
You can't just say "This guy was following me and I was in fear for my life." There has to be more than that. Simply being followed is not enough for a person to kill someone. There has to be a real and legitimate fear for their life. I doubt that being followed crosses that threshold. I mean, if it was, a person could go make a comment to a person, get that person to chase him, and then kill him, claiming that he felt his life was in danger.
There has to be more. Simply being followed is not enough.
Have you read Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes?
"a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary ... to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"
"“Forcible felony” means ... robbery; ... kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; ..."
So yeah, if you believe that someone is going to do one of those things, you can kill him. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to believe that such a thing could happen if you are walking down the street at night and someone gets out of a vehicle and begins to follow you.
Because the judge rejected Zimmerman's "stand your ground" defense, this discussion really isn't that pertinent, except to demonstrate that, under Florida law, confrontation should not be construed to preclude a reasonable fear of harm or death, which was my initial point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Does following someone constitute any of those charges? Robbery? No Kidnapping? No Aggravated Assault? No Aggravated battery? No Aggrevated Stalking? What is the definition of Aggravated Stalking? http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stalking/A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order. Stalkers target public figures or celebrities, children, and sometimes even complete strangers. But, in most cases, a stalker is someone you know and with whom you have had a relationship. Criminal statutes which can be used in an effort to deter stalking include laws against harassment and assault, as well as a specific stalking law. I don't know if Zimmerman's actions meet the definition of the stalking statute. Aggravated Stalking seems to be committing the crime of stalking while subject to a restraining order, etc. I believe that aggravated typically means a crime committed during the commission of another crime. (a felony, IIRC) Maybe one of the lawyers on the board can clear that up. Anyway, it seems to me that if Zimmerman did not commit a felony against Martin, then he could not have committed an "aggravated" crime.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
The person who is following doesn't have to actually do those things. The person being followed merely has to reasonably believe that the person following him is about to do one of those things, hence the "reasonably believe" and "prevent the imminent commission of". You can't prevent the commission of something that has already happened. As I said before, it's reasonable to believe, in my mind at least, that someone who gets out of his car and begins following you as you walk down the street at night is doing it for some malicious reason, very possibly to rob or kidnap you. Anyways, like I said, such discussion only serves to demonstrate that Martin confronting Zimmerman does not mean that Martin did not fear for his safety. Also, if you're after legal definitions relevant to this case, you'll want to go here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I used to have 776 memorized.
The person has to "Reasonably believe" a forcible felony is about to occur.
The other case is for already being attacked.
The statute came directly from Castle Doctrine and was intended to extend the same protection to any area where "you are legally allowed to be."
Florida also extended Castle Doctrine to include the concept that if someone "forcibly and illegally" enters your home, you can assume they mean you severe bodily harm and use lethal force. No direct threat is required, the forcible and illegal entry itself constitutes the threat.
The "forcible felony" clause of 776 was an outgrowth of the home invasion policy. Certain actions can cause the threat to be considered automatic.
I watched several hours of roundtable discussion and citizen commentary on the local Florida Court channel about this statute.
Having someone walk in your direction, even point and say "hey you!", is not reasonable cause to believe your life is in danger.
Having someone bang your skull onto concrete might be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Quote:
I used to have 776 memorized.
The person has to "Reasonably believe" a forcible felony is about to occur.
The other case is for already being attacked.
The statute came directly from Castle Doctrine and was intended to extend the same protection to any area where "you are legally allowed to be."
Florida also extended Castle Doctrine to include the concept that if someone "forcibly and illegally" enters your home, you can assume they mean you severe bodily harm and use lethal force. No direct threat is required, the forcible and illegal entry itself constitutes the threat.
The "forcible felony" clause of 776 was an outgrowth of the home invasion policy. Certain actions can cause the threat to be considered automatic.
I watched several hours of roundtable discussion and citizen commentary on the local Florida Court channel about this statute.
Having someone walk in your direction, even point and say "hey you!", is not reasonable cause to believe your life is in danger.
Having someone bang your skull onto concrete might be.
That would be the way I see it. a "Forcible felony" would require both force and a felony be committed. Following someone demonstrates no force, and the felony part is highly questionable as well.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
I don't think the facts really support Zimmerman's story, though I don't think there's enough evidence to convict him based on Florida law.
I didn't know the trial was already over.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ex-Chicago Cop: Zimmerman
Acquittal to Cause Race Riots
|
|
