George Zimmerman Trial

[Redbar]

More like: If GZ doens't have a gun, TM doesn't die...but it doesn't mean GZ survives.

Right, because TM was out that night specifically looking for someone to beat up, if GZ didn't have the gun there would have been no confrontation. Sorta like how insecure people or people in an insecure moment need liquid courage. GZ apparently wore his liquid courage on his waist and was probably a little too anxious to see just how brave it could make him.

 

[connor_in]

Well if he did do something wrong, he may be held accountable when he faces his Creator, but from a U.S. legal standpoint, applying Florida state laws, it appears he will be off the hook. One thing is certain, his life will never be the same after this, regardless of the verdict.

^ This

I have made similar references before myself

The justice system can only do what it can and many (if not most) have had to deal with its flaws. But my understanding in reading and discussing the topic with others from all walks of life is that it is designed more to make sure that an innocent man does not mistakenly go to jail than to prevent guilty ones from potentially walking free.

 

[connor_in]

Sorry, I have a hard time believing that someone is following me, at night, in the rain, to comment on my jacket.

Given the circumstances, I too, would feel threatened.

You have every right to fell threatened. But that does not give you the right to do certain other things that may or may not have occurred.

By the way...I did say it could have been any of a range of things not just the jacket thing.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You have every right to fell threatened. But that does not give you the right to do certain other things that may or may not have occurred.

By the way...I did say it could have been any of a range of things not just the jacket thing.

My point is that the moment someone feels threatened, anything can happen. I am not trying to justify TM's responses, whatever it may have been. What I am trying to convey is that the confrontation was a result of GZ following TM, no matter who threw the first punch. The whole incident was avoidable and should have been avoided if GZ would have listened to the 911 operator or listened when the police department told him to not follow suspects (as they did when they helped establish the watch).

 

[connor_in]

My point is that the moment someone feels threatened, anything can happen. I am not trying to justify TM's responses, whatever it may have been. What I am trying to convey is that the confrontation was a result of GZ following TM, no matter who threw the first punch. The whole incident was avoidable and should have been avoided if GZ would have listened to the 911 operator or listened when the police department told him to not follow suspects (as they did when they helped establish the watch).

...and my point is this happens every day that someone follows or checks out someone else for all sorts of reasons...yes, his following ultimately led to what became a confrontation, but that is not the only point along the timeline a confrontation could have been avoided....either going forward from there OR going backward from there...how about if GZ didn't take a watch patrol that night...how about if he turned left instead of right at a previous corner and never saw TM...how about if he never joined the watch? on the other hand... if your going from that point how about if GZ didn't actually confront TM (if he did) or conversely how about if TM didn't confront GZ (if he did)... or how about if TM didn't go to the store... or decided to walk elsewhere...or caught a ride with a friend

All of these things lead to the likely event of TM not being shot by GZ (how about if GZ was a worse shot even and TM only injured).

 

[Ndaccountant]

...and my point is this happens every day that someone follows or checks out someone else for all sorts of reasons...yes, his following ultimately led to what became a confrontation, but that is not the only point along the timeline a confrontation could have been avoided....either going forward from there OR going backward from there...how about if GZ didn't take a watch patrol that night...how about if he turned left instead of right at a previous corner and never saw TM...how about if he never joined the watch? on the other hand... if your going from that point how about if GZ didn't actually confront TM (if he did) or conversely how about if TM didn't confront GZ (if he did)... or how about if TM didn't go to the store... or decided to walk elsewhere...or caught a ride with a friend

All of these things lead to the likely event of TM not being shot by GZ (how about if GZ was a worse shot even and TM only injured).

There is a distinct difference between chance and choice.

Chance would describe many of the things you listed above. I am not talking about chance. I am talking about choice, as in the choice GZ made to follow TM and go against the advice he had been given multiple times. That choice is what I am focused on.

Yes, TM also chose to interact with GZ. However, IMO, that interaction was the direct result of GZ not following the advice of professionals.

 

[ND NYC]

let me get this straight...from a strictly legal (not moral) perespective...all that an armed person in florida who is in a fight and wants to use his weapon simply needs to do is lose the fight, so they can then shoot to kill their opponent... and this would not be a crime in any way?

still hoping some of the lawyers, Florida residents on here who know the law down there could help with this question

 

[Golden_Domer]

There is a distinct difference between chance and choice.

Chance would describe many of the things you listed above. I am not talking about chance. I am talking about choice, as in the choice GZ made to follow TM and go against the advice he had been given multiple times. That choice is what I am focused on.

Yes, TM also chose to interact with GZ. However, IMO, that interaction was the direct result of GZ not following the advice of professionals.

Please define "interact," because you're glossing over the fact that TM kicked GZ's *** and you seem to be saying GZ deserved it for following him. This reminds me of the classic: "if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, she wouldn't have gotten raped."

 

[Ndaccountant]

Please define "interact," because you're glossing over the fact that TM kicked GZ's *** and you seem to be saying GZ deserved it for following him. This reminds me of the classic: "if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, she wouldn't have gotten raped."

Not what I am trying to imply at all.

I chose the word interact since we really do not know for sure how approached who first or who hit who first.

 

[connor_in]

There is a distinct difference between chance and choice.

Chance would describe many of the things you listed above. I am not talking about chance. I am talking about choice, as in the choice GZ made to follow TM and go against the advice he had been given multiple times. That choice is what I am focused on.

Yes, TM also chose to interact with GZ. However, IMO, that interaction was the direct result of GZ not following the advice of professionals.

First Bold - Did he? Do we know that GZ did not just jump him?

Second Bold - Does that mean he should be found guilty in a court of law for second degree murder?

Look, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am looking at this as a legal matter, because at this point, that is what it is. Movies and TV have captured the sad statement that is a truth that many DA's live with...it's not about what a person did, it's about what the DA can prove in court.

My own personal feeling is that murder two is a stretch legally. I would figure the best that can be proven is some form of manslaughter (which I hope the jury has the ability to find for in lesser charges if they can and do not convict on murder two). Plus, GZ can still be taken to civil court by TM's family and be punished monetarily. I am guessing there are lawyers lining up to take that case (on TM's side).

 

[Golden_Domer]

still hoping some of the lawyers, Florida residents on here who know the law down there could help with this question

In this hypothetical, did the armed person provoke the fight? Because according to Fla. Stat. § 776.041, the codified self-defense laws are not available to those who provoke the use of force against him/herself unless:

(a) "Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or"

(b) "In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

Also, if the armed person in your hypothetical is attempting to commit, is committing or is escaping after the commission of a forcible felony, then he cannot invoke the self-defense laws.

Does this answer your question?

 

[Ndaccountant]

First Bold - Did he? Do we know that GZ did not just jump him?

Second Bold - Does that mean he should be found guilty in a court of law for second degree murder?

Look, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am looking at this as a legal matter, because at this point, that is what it is. Movies and TV have captured the sad statement that is a truth that many DA's live with...it's not about what a person did, it's about what the DA can prove in court.

My own personal feeling is that murder two is a stretch legally. I would figure the best that can be proven is some form of manslaughter (which I hope the jury has the ability to find for in lesser charges if they can and do not convict on murder two). Plus, GZ can still be taken to civil court by TM's family and be punished monetarily. I am guessing there are lawyers lining up to take that case (on TM's side).

I am not for murder two. I am not sure what really is possible or not, but I would think something similar to manslaughter would make the most sense to me. Like you, I am sure civil court is a given, though I am not sure it will amount to much.

As far as the first questioned is concerned, I say he did indirectly choose to interact. I say that given I believe I read where he had a chance to go inside the house, but chose to continue walking. IMO, that shows TM made a choice that implies he wanted some form of interaction.

 

[GoIrish41]

I can picture the scene and the positioning of Martin in my mind one of 3 ways

1. Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest with one or both arms pinned under his legs, which would have made it a bit easier for Z to pull the gun out and but, because Martin's leg would have been restricting his movement, exceedingly difficult for him to bring the around to the front of Martin's body to have achieved a shot to the chest

2. Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's neck with his arms free in back of Martin, which would make it fairly easy for Z to reach his gun but very difficult to bring it around to shoot M in the chest

3. Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's belly with his arms free above Martin's legs, which would have made it nearly impossible for Z to pull the gun from the holster. It would also seem that if his hands were free he would be using them to protect himself from the string of blows that was coming down upon him. If he did get to the gun, it might have been a little easier to bring the gun around, but getting the gun seems like it would be the problem in this position.

No matter where Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman, Martin was in the dominant position and, according to Zimmerman's testimony going after the gun (which seems improbable if he was at the same time "raining down blows" ground and pound style on his face. If Martin indeed knew about the gun as Zimmerman suggested, you would think he would do everything in his power to keep Zimmerman's hand away from it (and all while in the dominant position to ensure this happened). I'm not arguing that Martin's chest wasn't an easy target, I'm arguing that it would have been exceedingly difficult for Z to A) get tot he gun and B) maneuver it into a position where he could shoot that target where it was actually hit.

finally, this line of thought is being addressed in this case -- not quite the way I thought it would be but, the lawyer using the dummie is starting to touch on some of this, which has always put the timing of when zimmerman said he pulled the gun seem unbelivable to me.

 

[Redbar]

Please define "interact," because you're glossing over the fact that TM kicked GZ's *** and you seem to be saying GZ deserved it for following him. This reminds me of the classic: "if she wasn't wearing that short skirt, she wouldn't have gotten raped."

You are glossing over the fact that GZ chose to pursue TM with a suspicious and pre-judged mindset, one that in this instance was unwarranted. There are certain things one can do that will lead to them getting their *** kicked. Following someone in the rain, at night, confronting them, trying to detain them, whatever, are a few such things. If your cool with that, or you think your TV set is worth the risk, then take your whipping, you obviously knew that your "patrolling" could lead to confrontation otherwise you wouldn't bring the gun. It reminds me of the classic: wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Provoking a fight, and insuring in the end you win, even though you suck at fighting. If we are a nation where all people are equal then stopping, detaining, and asking for "paper's please" should be met with indignation unless it is a law enforcement officer doing the asking.

 

[connor_in]

I am not for murder two. I am not sure what really is possible or not, but I would think something similar to manslaughter would make the most sense to me. Like you, I am sure civil court is a given, though I am not sure it will amount to much.

As far as the first questioned is concerned, I say he did indirectly choose to interact. I say that given I believe I read where he had a chance to go inside the house, but chose to continue walking. IMO, that shows TM made a choice that implies he wanted some form of interaction.

I had not seen or heard this before...thx

 

[Redbar]

Speaking of choices GZ could have fired a shot into the air, I am pretty certain that a warning shot would have stopped, TM from standing his ground.

 

[Golden_Domer]

You are glossing over the fact that GZ chose to pursue TM with a suspicious and pre-judged mindset, one that in this instance was unwarranted. There are certain things one can do that will lead to them getting their *** kicked. Following someone in the rain, at night, confronting them, trying to detain them, whatever, are a few such things. If your cool with that, or you think your TV set is worth the risk, then take your whipping, you obviously knew that your "patrolling" could lead to confrontation otherwise you wouldn't bring the gun. It reminds me of the classic: wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Provoking a fight, and insuring in the end you win, even though you suck at fighting. If we are a nation where all people are equal then stopping, detaining, and asking for "paper's please" should be met with indignation unless it is a law enforcement officer doing the asking.

Even if GZ pursued TM w/ a "suspicious and prejudged mindset", he did nothing illegal. Nor does following someone w/ a "suspicious and prejudged mindset" warrant physical confrontation in the eyes of the law.

As to the bolded stuff, you don't know that any of that happened in this case. No one here had a front row seat to the TM vs. GZ brawl, so you can't speak so definitively on those issues.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Holy Schnikes!!!!

 

[Ndaccountant]

You are glossing over the fact that GZ chose to pursue TM with a suspicious and pre-judged mindset, one that in this instance was unwarranted. There are certain things one can do that will lead to them getting their *** kicked. Following someone in the rain, at night, confronting them, trying to detain them, whatever, are a few such things. If your cool with that, or you think your TV set is worth the risk, then take your whipping, you obviously knew that your "patrolling" could lead to confrontation otherwise you wouldn't bring the gun. It reminds me of the classic: wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Provoking a fight, and insuring in the end you win, even though you suck at fighting. If we are a nation where all people are equal then stopping, detaining, and asking for "paper's please" should be met with indignation unless it is a law enforcement officer doing the asking.

there you go again, making me think of movies.....

 

[EddytoNow]

Speaking of choices GZ could have fired a shot into the air, I am pretty certain that a warning shot would have stopped, TM from standing his ground.

IMO firing the gun into the air would have provoked TM into a more vociferous attack on GZ. Once the gun was fired most people would assume it might be fired again and the next time it might be aimed directly at them.

The defense is arguing that GZ's state of mind was such that he feared for his own life. Legally, GZ didn't have to be in danger of being severely inured or killed. He only needed to think his life was in danger.

 

[Redbar]

Even if GZ pursued TM w/ a "suspicious and prejudged mindset", he did nothing illegal. Nor does following someone w/ a "suspicious and prejudged mindset" warrant physical confrontation in the eyes of the law.

As to the bolded stuff, you don't know that any of that happened in this case. No one here had a front row seat to the TM vs. GZ brawl, so you can't speak so definitively on those issues.

Oh GZ did not confront him? He did not leave the 911 operator with the words, "they always get away"? Which could lead a reasonable mind to assume he intended to make sure this guy didn't "get away". All of that is "unreasonable" to you? Well people go to jail every day with farther stretches of logic. I feel very safe, even with my weight, all the way out on this limb.

 

[Golden_Domer]

Speaking of choices GZ could have fired a shot into the air, I am pretty certain that a warning shot would have stopped, TM from standing his ground.

I think you meant to put this statement in italics. lol. Also, what do you mean when you say TM was "standing his ground"?

 

[Redbar]

IMO firing the gun into the air would have provoked TM into a more vociferous attack on GZ. Once the gun was fired most people would assume it might be fired again and the next time it might be aimed directly at them.

The defense is arguing that GZ's state of mind was such that he feared for his own life. Legally, GZ didn't have to be in danger of being severely inured or killed. He only needed to think his life was in danger.

Maybe if he used his words when he fired the gun, maybe something like, " that was a warning" or "the next shot won't miss" or " "I don't want to kill you..." I don't know...it would stop most people even bullies, maybe not hardened criminals or deranged individuals.

I admit I am not too concerned with what the Florida law says but more with what it should say. If people want to make arguments about what is right and wrong, and base what they would do on some law written by people who frequently are some of the most morally negotiable among us then I am concerned about where this will take us. Listening to some people, one would think the law and conscience are one and the same.

 

[Redbar]

I think you meant to put this statement in italics. lol. Also, what do you mean when you say TM was "standing his ground"?

Oh yeah, I forgot TM had no right to stand his ground, that is not for him. Also, he had no right to be in that neighborhood, and apparently he had no right to breathe.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Everybody is making presumptions to bolster their pre-conceived beliefs. (Some looks silly.)

The case for murder two is thin, but not for the cornucopia of other charges.

The prosecution always gets the last word. And since in most cases they are big sissies about even brining a case, they usually have something to lay on the case.

We will see. I think anyone speculating on the exchange between the two is off-base. And I think that many of you forgot what it was like to be seventeen. By a show of hands, how many of you occasionally smoked a doobie when you were that age? Good. Now how many of you talked/bragged about kicking ***, even when it wasn't true? Good. Thank you.

 

[Golden_Domer]

Oh GZ did not confront him? He did not leave the 911 operator with the words, "they always get away"? Which could lead a reasonable mind to assume he intended to make sure this guy didn't "get away". All of that is "unreasonable" to you? Well people go to jail every day with farther stretches of logic. I feel very safe, even with my weight, all the way out on this limb.

I don't know if GZ confronted TM, and neither do you. That's my point. You can't state that as a fact. You are entitled to make as many reasonable assumptions as you want, though. The jury will not be instructed to do the same.

 

[irishpat183]

Oh GZ did not confront him? He did not leave the 911 operator with the words, "they always get away"? Which could lead a reasonable mind to assume he intended to make sure this guy didn't "get away". All of that is "unreasonable" to you? Well people go to jail every day with farther stretches of logic. I feel very safe, even with my weight, all the way out on this limb.

Given TM's past...would it also be resonable mind to figure he's the one that started the fight?

And who cares if GZ was stating a FACT?! He's probably pissed like most homeowners in the area who have been victims of the recent robberies!

 

[irishpat183]

Everybody is making presumptions to bolster their pre-conceived beliefs. (Some looks silly.)

The case for murder two is thin, but not for the cornucopia of other charges.

The prosecution always gets the last word. And since in most cases they are big sissies about even brining a case, they usually have something to lay on the case.

We will see. I think anyone speculating on the exchange between the two is off-base. And I think that many of you forgot what it was like to be seventeen. By a show of hands, how many of you occasionally smoked a doobie when you were that age? Good. Now how many of you talked/bragged about kicking ***, even when it wasn't true? Good. Thank you.

Yeah, we were all young and stupid once, but when confronted by an adult...I was respectful and never thought about fist fighting with one.

And how does this make GZ guilty of anything?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Yeah, we were all young and stupid once, but when confronted by an adult...I was respectful and never thought about fist fighting with one.

And how does this make GZ guilty of anything?

I guess if it you want to take 'assumption' far enough, we don't know what he thought about or whether TM confronted anybody.


Let alone, if any contact occurred, whether it was a 'fist fight' as you characterized, or a fight for ones life. After all the world is a much more dangerous place, even than when you were a kid, Pat!

 

[ACamp1900]

I never smoked joints and talked trash about kicking *** when I was 17... just saying.

Doesn't mean anything either way but yeah...