George Zimmerman Trial

[irishfan]

Stand Your Ground makes no sense. If TM had killed GZ, would he now be arguing Stand Your Ground in court as well with about the same chance of getting off? Seems to be a flawed law, because my understanding of it is that either person in this scenario could kill the other one and get away with it.

I haven't been following this case nearly as closely as I should be though, so I could be 100% wrong with what I wrote above.

 

[jmurphy75]

Not sure why it is so hard to understand, the physical contact is where the line is drawn. The perceived fear that someone is chasing you does not matter, he could be chasing you to give you back the wallet he thought you dropped, or he is lost and trying to ask for directions. As far as the law is concerned TM had no proof or reason to believe that GZ was out to harm him....as much as GZ had no proof that TM was out to rob someone. The law comes into effect where the exchange turns physical, who ever PHYSICALLY attacked the other is at fault. Even then the Stand your ground law is murky.

 

[Wild Bill]

Reasonable fear for your life is subjective. You guys keep talking as if you know that GZ politely walked up to TM and asked him a few questions. How do you know that GZ didn't start to get physical first? Just because TM didn't have bruises all over his face doesn't mean that GZ didn't cause the whole altercation. Kinda makes you wonder why someone who had honest intentions of just finding out what TM was up to would take a gun along. I seriously doubt he was walking around his house strapped, he made a conscious decision to be armed. Almost like he was expecting something to happen.

No, it's not.

 

[woolybug25]

Except that it isn't at all. It has absolutely no bearing on Zimmerman's guilt/innocence. It matters who assaulted who first and whether ZIMMERMAN had a reasonable fear for HIS life. TM's feelings/motives/whatever are -- literally -- irrelevant in this case.

It absolutely has bearing. As you mentioned in your post right after the one above, one has to ask if TM's response was a reasonable one. Did he fear for his safety and felt that he needed to defend himself against someone that was clearly stalking him with unknown intent?

If someone tried to sue another person for assault because they were attacked by someone that they were verbally assaulting (by no means am I implying that GZ did this), they would have a very difficult time because the defendant could say that they felt threatened and had no other means but to defend themselves.

That intent of TM is really the focal point of the trial in my opinion.

 

[IrishLax]

Reasonable fear for your life is subjective. You guys keep talking as if you know that GZ politely walked up to TM and asked him a few questions.

Not from what people have been saying in court. I heard a bunch of times today during trial coverage that Zimmerman being ASSAULTED by Martin wouldn't constitute reasonable fear for his life. So going off of that, I don't see how simply being followed could possibly constitute as reasonable fear in a court of law.

How do you know that GZ didn't start to get physical first? Just because TM didn't have bruises all over his face doesn't mean that GZ didn't cause the whole altercation.

We don't, and if you read my posts I actually say multiple times that IF Zimmerman assault Martin first (or had his gun drawn or any other kind of initiatory act) then the self defense argument fails.

Kinda makes you wonder why someone who had honest intentions of just finding out what TM was up to would take a gun along. I seriously doubt he was walking around his house strapped, he made a conscious decision to be armed. Almost like he was looking expecting something to happen.

His motives for carrying are completely irrelevant and there are plenty of reasonable ones. Maybe he carries all the time when he leaves the house... I know many people who do. Maybe he carries when he's doing neighborhood watch duties because he's heard of violent crime. There are tons upon tons of plausible explanations for him carrying. This train of thought is a complete non-starter.

 

[military_irish]

Reasonable fear for your life is subjective. You guys keep talking as if you know that GZ politely walked up to TM and asked him a few questions. How do you know that GZ didn't start to get physical first? Just because TM didn't have bruises all over his face doesn't mean that GZ didn't cause the whole altercation. Kinda makes you wonder why someone who had honest intentions of just finding out what TM was up to would take a gun along. I seriously doubt he was walking around his house strapped, he made a conscious decision to be armed. Almost like he was looking expecting something to happen.

I thought I heard or read somewhere that GZ was sitting in his car. If that was the case I would have my gun strapped to me too, then he noticed an unusual figure walking in his neighborhood and called 9-1-1. I know he was told not to pursue but (if I can jump in GZ mind, he was armed and felt safe.) Then decided to pursue TM in case he decided to "do something wrong". Then if I was attacked by the unknown "assailant" I would do everything I could to protect my life, including taking theirs. No matter the age.

 

[woolybug25]

I thought I heard or read somewhere that GZ was sitting in his car. If that was the case I would have my gun strapped to me too, then he noticed an unusual figure walking in his neighborhood and called 9-1-1. I know he was told not to pursue but (if I can jump in GZ mind, he was armed and felt safe.) Then decided to pursue TM in case he decided to "do something wrong". Then if I was attacked by the unknown "assailant" I would do everything I could to protect my life, including taking theirs. No matter the age.

What in your mind would be a reasonable response if a strange man was watching you from a car and proceeded to clearly follow you on you foot?

 

[drayer54]

Except that it isn't at all. It has absolutely no bearing on Zimmerman's guilt/innocence. It matters who assaulted who first and whether ZIMMERMAN had a reasonable fear for HIS life. TM's feelings/motives/whatever are -- literally -- irrelevant in this case.

This!!!!

The chase may change your opinion, but it's not the law!

 

[woolybug25]

This!!!!

The chase may change your opinion, but it's not the law!

That is not the law. You do not have to be in the process of being physically attacked to defend yourself.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Except that it isn't at all. It has absolutely no bearing on Zimmerman's guilt/innocence. It matters who assaulted who first and whether ZIMMERMAN had a reasonable fear for HIS life. TM's feelings/motives/whatever are -- literally -- irrelevant in this case.

YES IT DOES! You don't know what happened when GZ confronted TM. The ONLY reason there was initial confrontation is because GZ pursued TM. If there is no chase then TM doesn't have to defend himself and this whole thing would have never happened. You cannot seperate the chase from the actuall incident, one would not have happened without the other.

 

[jmurphy75]

The stand your ground law may be flawed, but is was brought about with good intent. There were people getting mugged, and, attacked that were being charged with execsive force or some kind of manslaughter or battery charges for defending themselves. Which is even more ridiculous than the law itself, criminals were actually suing their victims aftrer the victims fought back and hurt them. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that you weren't allowed to shoot someone breaking in your home, you actually had to wait until they were inside and you had cause to fear for your life.

 

[IrishLax]

It absolutely has bearing. As you mentioned in your post right after the one above, one has to ask if TM's response was a reasonable one. Did he fear for his safety and felt that he needed to defend himself against someone that was clearly stalking him with unknown intent?

Don't really see how wooly... it would if Martin was on trial but he isn't. Zimmerman is the one on trial so all that matters is whether or not he was defending himself AND whether he was justified in using lethal force. How he got himself into the situation is truly immaterial.

If someone tried to sue another person for assault because they were attacked by someone that they were verbally assaulting (by no means am I implying that GZ did this), they would have a very difficult time because the defendant could say that they felt threatened and had no other means but to defend themselves.

That intent of TM is really the focal point of the trial in my opinion.

Actually, if you provoke a fight by talking **** or whatever and someone sucker punches you it's an open and shut case in your favor. If you're talking **** with a gun or a knife or other weapon in your hand it's a different story. But just following someone surely is not grounds for justified assault. The subjective feeling of being threatened really has zero bearing unless the law/jury recognizes it as the reasonable response.

 

[IrishLax]

That is not the law. You do not have to be in the process of being physically attacked to defend yourself.

No.... you don't. But the exceptions are a LOT fewer than you're making it seem.

 

[jmurphy75]

No, it's not.

It shouldn't be but in this case they are saying both GZ and TM both had cause to fear for their lives. One is claiming he was being beaten but minor injuries are causing some to say that is not reasonable. How is anyone to know where the beating would have ended? The other side is saying he was being followed by a strange character "creepy cracker" and that was reason to be in fear.

 

[woolybug25]

Don't really see how wooly... it would if Martin was on trial but he isn't. Zimmerman is the one on trial so all that matters is whether or not he was defending himself AND whether he was justified in using lethal force. How he got himself into the situation is truly immaterial.

I understand what you are saying, but if I go and start punching a random stranger in the street, he starts beating me up instead, I do not reserve the right to kill him because I feel my life is in danger.

Actually, if you provoke a fight by talking **** or whatever and someone sucker punches you it's an open and shut case in your favor. If you're talking **** with a gun or a knife or other weapon in your hand it's a different story. But just following someone surely is not grounds for justified assault. The subjective feeling of being threatened really has zero bearing unless the law/jury recognizes it as the reasonable response.

I'm not talking about a situation where someone is getting yelled at and they decide to sucker punch them. I am talking about someone that is getting yelled at, fears that he is about to physically attacked and has no option to retreat, and defends themselves.

 

[IrishLax]

YES IT DOES! You don't know what happened when GZ confronted TM. The ONLY reason there was initial confrontation is because GZ pursued TM. If there is no chase then TM doesn't have to defend himself and this whole thing would have never happened. You cannot seperate the chase from the actuall incident, one would not have happened without the other.

MARTIN DOESN'T HAVE TO "DEFEND" HIMSELF PERIOD UNLESS ZIMMERMAN ACTUALLY ASSAULTED OR THREATENED HIM! This is common sense and law 101.

Reasonable responses to being followed:
"Why are you following me? I'm going to my house around the corner."

Unreasonable responses:
Starting a fight.

This is not debatable. Simply being followed is NOT grounds to assault someone. Being verbally threatened is only RARELY grounds to assault someone. So IF Martin started the fight and all Zimmerman did was follow him it is not self defense. If Zimmerman did something more... verbally threaten him after following him; brandish a weapon; etc... then it would be self defense.

This is not a point to be argued. This is a fact coming from understanding of the law as presented to me by lawyers.

 

[woolybug25]

It shouldn't be but in this case they are saying both GZ and TM both had cause to fear for their lives. One is claiming he was being beaten but minor injuries are causing some to say that is not reasonable. How is anyone to know where the beating would have ended? The other side is saying he was being followed by a strange character "creepy cracker" and that was reason to be in fear.

I am not arguing that they didn't both may fear for their lives. What I am saying is that if a jury believes that TM was in a position where he couldn't retreat before confrontation with a stranger he believed to have ill intent, then GZ initiated the assault. If that is the case, then GZ is walking a fine line of murder. That question of intent is the heartbeat of the trial.

 

[military_irish]

What in your mind would be a reasonable response if a strange man was watching you from a car and proceeded to clearly follow you on you foot?

I know I am not the "normal" man but when I was 17 I had this happen TWICE. I moved from my mothers house to my fathers. No one knew me in the neighborhood. One man then approached me in an aggressive manner, in my head I know I said "I will "knock this guy out" if he does the wrong thing", he asked if I was "lost" but I know he was just wondering what I was doing. I said "no, that my father lived around the corner and told him my name" he said he knew my father. We then shared some "fake" laughs and carried on.

The second time it was late because I met a girl after curfew. As I was walking home with little to no light on the street a younger man, maybe in his 30's approached me and blatantly asked "what the f*** I was doing around there". I automatically was on my guard and was ready to fight but still explained myself and told him I just moved into the neighborhood. He appeared drunk and laughed it off and said "cool glad you are around". I still hate him til this day because he seemed like a jack a$$ but everything ended well.

Things can be handle diplomatically at all times, in my world anyways

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

What in your mind would be a reasonable response if a strange man was watching you from a car and proceeded to clearly follow you on you foot?

He obviously had a cell phone.
A reasonable response would have been Hello 911 I have this weird dude following me.

 

[woolybug25]

MARTIN DOESN'T HAVE TO "DEFEND" HIMSELF PERIOD UNLESS ZIMMERMAN ACTUALLY ASSAULTED OR THREATENED HIM! This is common sense and law 101.

Reasonable responses to being followed:
"Why are you following me? I'm going to my house around the corner."

Unreasonable responses:
Starting a fight.

This is not debatable. Simply being followed is NOT grounds to assault someone. Being verbally threatened is only RARELY grounds to assault someone. So IF Martin started the fight and all Zimmerman did was follow him it is not self defense. If Zimmerman did something more... verbally threaten him after following him; brandish a weapon; etc... then it would be self defense.

This is not a point to be argued. This is a fact coming from understanding of the law as presented to me by lawyers.

Again, the argument the prosecution is trying to make is that TM was put in a position where WAS THREATENED by GZ's constant pursuit. As GZ got close enough for TM to feel the need to defend himself, the jury will need to decide if TM bringing it to physical altercation was reasonable. That... is law 101.

You're not the only one that has spoken about this case with lawyers. Again, you absolutely do not have to be in the process of being physically attacked to defend yourself. There is legal precedence for that.

 

[IrishLax]

I understand what you are saying, but if I go and start punching a random stranger in the street, he starts beating me up instead, I do not reserve the right to kill him because I feel my life is in danger.

Obviously........................... and like I've said about 100 times now, if Zimmerman assault Martin first or otherwise overtly threatened him after following him it is not self defense.

I'm not talking about a situation where someone is getting yelled at and they decide to sucker punch them. I am talking about someone that is getting yelled at, fears that he is about to physically attacked and has no option to retreat, and defends themselves.

Only very rarely does that justify assault. There almost always has to be another complicating factor... like the person being belligerently drunk, otherwise out of control, having a weapon, having a history of some sort, just having assaulted another person, etc.

How do I come to this conclusion? From parents getting into fights at little league games. I know that when someone verbally threatens another person "I'm going to whip your *** in the parking lot after the game!" and you have every reason to believe that they mean to follow through on it, that you do not have the right to haul off and hit them first. Just a fact of the law and I think it extends to most verbal threats/perceived danger.

 

[woolybug25]

He obviously had a cell phone.
A reasonable response would have been Hello 911 I have this weird dude following me.

Or a call to someone he knows, perhaps?

Because that is also an argument that the prosecution is making.

 

[jmurphy75]

I know I am not the "normal" man but when I was 17 I had this happen TWICE. I moved from my mothers house to my fathers. No one knew me in the neighborhood. One man then approached me in an aggressive manner, in my head I know I said "I will "knock this guy out" if he does the wrong thing", he asked if I was "lost" but I know he was just wondering what I was doing. I said "no, that my father lived around the corner and told him my name" he said he knew my father. We then shared some "fake" laughs and carried on.

The second time it was late because I met a girl after curfew. As I was walking home with little to no light on the street a younger man, maybe in his 30's approached me and blatantly asked "what the f*** I was doing around there". I automatically was on my guard and was ready to fight but still explained myself and told him I just moved into the neighborhood. He appeared drunk and laughed it off and said "cool glad you are around". I still hate him til this day because he seemed like a jack a$$ but everything ended well.

Things can be handle diplomatically at all times, in my world anyways

Actually you did what I did in similar circumstances you made a choice to talk instead of getting physical. Or at least until you assessed the situation to see if you were in danger.

 

[IrishLax]

Again, the argument the prosecution is trying to make is that TM was put in a position where WAS THREATENED by GZ's constant pursuit. As GZ got close enough for TM to feel the need to defend himself, the jury will need to decide if TM bringing it to physical altercation was reasonable. That... is law 101.

You're not the only one that has spoken about this case with lawyers. Again, you absolutely do not have to be in the process of being physically attacked to defend yourself. There is legal precedence for that.

No, actually that's not the case they're trying to make at all. The case they're trying to make is that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear for his life and was not acting in self defense when he shot Martin. It's really that simple.

They aren't remotely trying to "justify" Martin's actions or anything of the like. Pay more attention.

 

[jmurphy75]

Or a call to someone he knows, perhaps?

Because that is also an argument that the prosecution is making.

Not to bag on his decesion making skills but how would calling her help the situation? 911 or his dad would've made sense. There was no attempt at either.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

MARTIN DOESN'T HAVE TO "DEFEND" HIMSELF PERIOD UNLESS ZIMMERMAN ACTUALLY ASSAULTED OR THREATENED HIM! This is common sense and law 101.

Reasonable responses to being followed:
"Why are you following me? I'm going to my house around the corner."

Unreasonable responses:
Starting a fight.

This is not debatable. Simply being followed is NOT grounds to assault someone. Being verbally threatened is only RARELY grounds to assault someone. So IF Martin started the fight and all Zimmerman did was follow him it is not self defense. If Zimmerman did something more... verbally threaten him after following him; brandish a weapon; etc... then it would be self defense.

This is not a point to be argued. This is a fact coming from understanding of the law as presented to me by lawyers.

Reasonable responses to suspicious activity: Call police, let them do their job.
Unreasonable response: Chase suspiscious person while armed.

Again, you're basing your argument on the notion that GZ just walked up too him and wanted to ask a few simple questions. You're indicating that TM had no right to defend himself yet you don't know what GZ did whe he confronted TM. Therefore, you can't say that TM wasn't fearful for his life. Your lawyer friend can't tell you how TM felt and why he reacted the way he did.

 

[IrishLax]

I am not arguing that they didn't both may fear for their lives. What I am saying is that if a jury believes that TM was in a position where he couldn't retreat before confrontation with a stranger he believed to have ill intent, then GZ initiated the assault. If that is the case, then GZ is walking a fine line of murder. That question of intent is the heartbeat of the trial.

This is true, but no reasonable person believes this and that is why the prosecution isn't pushing this angle at all. Martin had plenty of options.

1. Continue walking home.
2. Call the cops.
3. Respond to Zimmerman with words if Zimmerman wasn't acting aggressively when they met face-to-face.

Only a fool would actually believe he was backed into a corner where he had no other option than to confront and assault Zimmerman. Hell, Rachel even said on the stand she encouraged him to just keep going home and he ignored her.

 

[woolybug25]

No, actually that's not the case they're trying to make at all. The case they're trying to make is that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear for his life and was not acting in self defense when he shot Martin. It's really that simple.

They aren't remotely trying to "justify" Martin's actions or anything of the like. Pay more attention.

I didn't say that they were trying to justify TM's actions, I said they would decide if they were reasonable under the conditions. If so, then that frames the situation. GM obviously wouldn't have feared for his life in the fight if the fight didn't occur. How the altercation came to pass would bare no relation to the case if it didn't. So did GZ fear for his life only because the altercation he created started going the wrong direction? That is what they will decide.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Or a call to someone he knows, perhaps?

Because that is also an argument that the prosecution is making.

What's a friend gonna do though?
All he had to do was dial 911 say I'm a 17 year old minor and I have this creepy dude following me.
Zimmerman gets picked up more than likely gets released maybe not.

If TM was anything like I was at 17 though he thought he was a world beater and said F it I'm gonna teach this guy a lesson.

Not saying that's how he thought just how most young males in my experience do.

 

[IrishLax]

Reasonable responses to suspicious activity: Call police, let them do their job.
Unreasonable response: Chase suspiscious person while armed.

The "reasonableness" of pursuing Martin is not relevant at all to whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he killed Martin. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING REMOTELY ILLEGAL ABOUT FOLLOWING SOMEONE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. This has been explained countless times.

Again, you're basing your argument on the notion that GZ just walked up too him and wanted to ask a few simple questions. You're indicating that TM had no right to defend himself yet you don't know what GZ did whe he confronted TM. Therefore, you can't say that TM wasn't fearful for his life. Your lawyer friend can't tell you how TM felt and why he reacted the way he did.

NO I AM NOT! Jesus ****ing christ dude... this is why we have the word IF in the English language.

I said IF Zimmerman didn't do anything but follow him THEN Martin did not have any right whatsoever to "defend" himself.

And I also said IF Zimmerman did more (i.e. verbally threaten him, brandish a weapon, etc.) THEN Martin had every right to assault Zimmerman and Zimmerman cannot claim self defense.

This really isn't hard.