George Zimmerman Trial

[drayer54]

My bad, I assumed you would understand the context of the situation. I have also approached people while armed, however, I was not chasing them in an attempt to detain them, and they were not running from me. I'll be clearer next time...

None of the chase or scenario before the fight is relevant as to whether or not this is self defense. Any instance of applying this law takes no regard to the setup or the situation.

If TM tried to retreat, then absolutely it was not self defense. However the statements made in the earlier post couldn't be further from accurate for this law.

 

[Wild Bill]

I haven't heard this brought up by anyone, but it would seem to me that logic would dictate that if you are straddling a person, your legs would block them something like taking a weapon out of a holster. I think common sense would suggest that his arms would be obscured from getting easily to the gun.

Edit: The conclusion I could draw from my previous post is that the gun had already been out, in case I wasn't being clear.

Martin could have been straddling his neck/upper chest area, pinning Zimmerman's shoulders underneath his body. If so, Zimmerman's arms would have been next to his body, underneath Martin and unobstructed by Martin's legs. Sure, the range of motion would have been limited but his lower arms (elbows to wrists) and hands would have been completely free to grab the gun.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Unless there is something special in Florida law there is nothing illegal about following someone in your neighborhood. To #2, that's not how self defense works. If I'm following someone and they attack me... it's still self defense. Period. To #3, that's not how the stand your ground law works at all.

Bottom line is being followed gives you no right to attack someone. This is common sense. Everything you just posted seems either flat out wrong or irrelevant to what would actually convict Zimmerman. At least from what I've read and been told by lawyers but I don't live in Florida and am not one myself.

Come on, bro. TM was actively trying to get away, if he just wanted to confront GZ and attack him GZ wouldn't have been trying to chase and find him. In that situation if TM felt scared of GZ following him he was justified in standing his ground.

Don't try to act like this was just one guy walking around looking for someone. If so, what was the gun for?

 

[drayer54]

Martin could have been straddling his neck/upper chest area, pinning Zimmerman's shoulders underneath his body. If so, Zimmerman's arms would have been next to his body, underneath Martin and unobstructed by Martin's legs. Sure, the range of motion would have been limited but his lower arms (elbows to wrists) and hands would have been completely free to grab the gun.

I think the neighbor who was the first to the scene verified that TM was on top and that it was GZ asking for help. His story and GZ's match well and it could validate the idea that TM was the aggressor.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

None of the chase or scenario before the fight is relevant as to whether or not this is self defense. Any instance of applying this law takes no regard to the setup or the situation. If TM tried to retreat, then absolutely it was not self defense. However the statements made in the earlier post couldn't be further from accurate for this law.

BS! That's the main point! If TM felt threatened(and judging by the outcome he had good reason) he had every right to defend himself.

 

[drayer54]

Come on, bro. TM was actively trying to get away, if he just wanted to confront GZ and attack him GZ wouldn't have been trying to chase and find him. In that situation if TM felt scared of GZ following him he was justified in standing his ground.

Don't try to act like this was just one guy walking around looking for someone. If so, what was the gun for?

What evidence have you seen that implies TM was trying to get away?

The fact that he had a gun is irrelevant. The gun was legal and he was justified in carrying it.

Did those wounds on GZ happen when TM was trying to get away?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I think the neighbor who was the first to the scene verified that TM was on top and that it was GZ asking for help. His story and GZ's match well and it could validate the idea that TM was the aggressor.

This is such horsesh!t!!!

How the fvck is the person running away the agressor!?

 

[drayer54]

BS! That's the main point! If TM felt threatened(and judging by the outcome he had good reason) he had every right to defend himself.

Defend himself from what? Defend himself while pummeling GZ?

Had TM just ran away, the MMA beat down wouldn't have happened. TM never ran away!
That's the problem.

This is such horsesh!t!!!




How the fvck is the person running away the agressor!?

Let's try a link.
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense

The chase doesn't matter. The pursuit doesn't matter. The phone call doesn't matter. What matters is who laid hands on who and did the other attempt to retreat. If TM is pummeling GZ ( regardless of everything that happened before) and GZ is calling for help and trying to escape... he is 100% justified in pulling his legal gun and doing what he did.

 

[drayer54]

The neighbor was able to corroborate the claims of GZ. The burden of proof lies with the State and they've done nothing this week but provide me doubt as to who was on top at the best and no valid conclusions from the 2 days of trying to figure out what kind of person uses the term 'creepy *** cracker'. The neighbor sealed the case in my opinion.

Open up the betting pool and I'm betting heavy on Acquittal. Innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen a thing that tells he committed a crime.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

What evidence have you seen that implies TM was trying to get away?The fact that he had a gun is irrelevant. The gun was legal and he was justified in carrying it.

Did those wounds on GZ happen when TM was trying to get away?

Because you don't have to go looking for someone who is trying to confront YOU!

 

[IrishLax]

Come on, bro. TM was actively trying to get away, if he just wanted to confront GZ and attack him GZ wouldn't have been trying to chase and find him. In that situation if TM felt scared of GZ following him he was justified in standing his ground.

Don't try to act like this was just one guy walking around looking for someone. If so, what was the gun for?

To the part I bolded... no, he is not. Being followed or approached or whatever by someone is NEVER justification for escalating to a physical altercation (e.g. assault). Everything that is a prequel to the fight is immaterial and irrelevant. All that matters is who assaulted who first physically. If GZ assaulted TM, then it's not self defense. If TM "stood his ground" and assaulted GZ, it is self defense.

It doesn't matter that GZ was carrying. It doesn't matter why GZ thought TM was suspicious. It doesn't matter that he chose to follow him through the neighborhood. All of that is has no bearing on guilt or innocence.

BS! That's the main point! If TM felt threatened(and judging by the outcome he had good reason) he had every right to defend himself.

No, he didn't. "Feeling threatened" is not justification for assault. Being followed is not justification for assault. If TM assaulted GZ because he felt threatened or was otherwise perturbed at being followed then GZ is the one acting in self-defense NOT TM.

This is such horsesh!t!!!

How the fvck is the person running away the agressor!?

Because it's irrelevant who was doing what prior to the actual altercation. What matters is who escalated it from cat-and-mouse to a fight and therefor who was defending themselves. It also matters the severity in which Martin was injuring Zimmerman in whether or not lethal force was justified. Those are the ONLY two things that really matter. Everything prior is irrelevant white noise.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Defend himself from what? Defend himself while pummeling GZ?

Had TM just ran away, the MMA beat down wouldn't have happened. TM never ran away!
That's the problem.


Let's try a link.
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense

The chase doesn't matter. The pursuit doesn't matter. The phone call doesn't matter. What matters is who laid hands on who and did the other attempt to retreat. If TM is pummeling GZ ( regardless of everything that happened before) and GZ is calling for help and trying to escape... he is 100% justified in pulling his legal gun and doing what he did.

Want to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.
If a man is chasing me through a neighborhood at night, and I have no clue who he is or why he's trying to get me, when I decide to stop and defend myself, the AGRESSOR can then shoot me for it?

 

[GoIrish41]

The neighbor was able to corroborate the claims of GZ. The burden of proof lies with the State and they've done nothing this week but provide me doubt as to who was on top at the best and no valid conclusions from the 2 days of trying to figure out what kind of person uses the term 'creepy *** cracker'. The neighbor sealed the case in my opinion.

Open up the betting pool and I'm betting heavy on Acquittal. Innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen a thing that tells he committed a crime.

I'll take that be. Zimmerman will be found guilty.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

To the part I bolded... no, he is not. Being followed or approached or whatever by someone is NEVER justification for escalating to a physical altercation (e.g. assault). Everything that is a prequel to the fight is immaterial and irrelevant. All that matters is who assaulted who first physically. If GZ assaulted TM, then it's not self defense. If TM "stood his ground" and assaulted GZ, it is self defense.

It doesn't matter that GZ was carrying. It doesn't matter why GZ thought TM was suspicious. It doesn't matter that he chose to follow him through the neighborhood. All of that is has no bearing on guilt or innocence.



No, he didn't. "Feeling threatened" is not justification for assault. Being followed is not justification for assault. If TM assaulted GZ because he felt threatened or was otherwise perturbed at being followed then GZ is the one acting in self-defense NOT TM.



Because it's irrelevant who was doing what prior to the actual altercation. What matters is who escalated it from cat-and-mouse to a fight and therefor who was defending themselves. It also matters the severity in which Martin was injuring Zimmerman in whether or not lethal force was justified. Those are the ONLY two things that really matter. Everything prior is irrelevant white noise.

You can't say he didn't have the right to defend himself. I'm telling you, if you feel threatened for your life(and you don't know that TM didn't) in the state of Florida you can use whatever means necessary to protect yourself. You're concluding that TM didn't feel threatened for his life and just started hitting GZ. If I'm in that situation I probobly would have done the same thing TM did, so would most men.

 

[BobD]

Number of winners in this case: 0

 

[drayer54]

I'll take that be. Zimmerman will be found guilty.

Name your bet!

He's innocent.

 

[military_irish]

I really do not care what the outcome of this trial is, it in no way affects the way I will live my life for the next 40-50 years (if I live that long).

With that said, I will play devils advocate. I work in a jail with major offenders coming through, murderers, rapist, robbers, and whatever else you can think of.

Picture me as Zimmerman (but don't think of me like him really), we are taught to never, ever, start a fight or actively engage a prisoner. But if they decided to talk trash and we respond back, and they attack us we have every right to defend ourselves.

So if Zimmerman followed TM and was just asking questions like "why are you here, what are you doing" then TM got an attitude and decided to fight rather than explain himself. Zimmerman has every right to defend himself because the person he has never seen in his neighborhood decided to fight rather than talk.

I am sorry but if I live in a decent neighborhood and I am the leader of the neighborhood watch. I will know who lives where and who belongs. If someone I never seen steps foot in my neighborhood I would kindly ask them their business. Not that they have to explain but if it was me and I meant no harm I would tell them my business.

That is just the way I feel anyway. If he is found guilty, cool, if he is found not guilty, that's cool too. It affects me in no manner at all. Except if you read twitter and all the people saying they will "kill them a creepy a$$ cracker if GZ is found not guilty" I would worry, but in reality I am still not scared

 

[Wild Bill]

You can't say he didn't have the right to defend himself. I'm telling you, if you feel threatened for your life(and you don't know that TM didn't) in the state of Florida you can use whatever means necessary to protect yourself. You're concluding that TM didn't feel threatened for his life and just started hitting GZ. If I'm in that situation I probobly would have done the same thing TM did, so would most men.

I believe, though I'm not certain, you're wrong on this. It's not a subjective test, its an objective test. His belief isn't relevant. Can anyone clarify? I haven't dissected Florida's law...been busy working and paying my bills.

 

[pkt77242]

What evidence have you seen that implies TM was trying to get away?

The fact that he had a gun is irrelevant. The gun was legal and he was justified in carrying it.

Did those wounds on GZ happen when TM was trying to get away?

Um TmM was trying to get away. He was on the phone with a girl and he told her I am being followed and I am going to try and lose him/ ditch him. Then he tells her he couldn't lose the guy and he was still being followed and that is when the confrontation happens. There is plants of evidence that TM was trying to get away from GZ but couldn't.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I believe, though I'm not certain, you're wrong on this. It's not a subjective test, its an objective test. His belief isn't relevant. Can anyone clarify? I haven't dissected Florida's law...been busy working and paying my bills.

Trust me, not wrong. It may be flawed, but it is 100% subjective.

 

[drayer54]

Want to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.
If a man is chasing me through a neighborhood at night, and I have no clue who he is or why he's trying to get me, when I decide to stop and defend myself, the AGRESSOR can then shoot me for it?

The chase doesn't matter. I've explained why.

 

[IrishLax]

You can't say he didn't have the right to defend himself. I'm telling you, if you feel threatened for your life(and you don't know that TM didn't) in the state of Florida you can use whatever means necessary to protect yourself. You're concluding that TM didn't feel threatened for his life and just started hitting GZ. If I'm in that situation I probobly would have done the same thing TM did, so would most men.

This is incredibly circular logic then (and conflicts with everything that has been said in the trial). I've seen it stated probably a half dozen times today alone watching coverage that for you to have the right to "stand your ground" you have to have a reasonable fear for your life (i.e. even if Zimmerman was getting beat up, he would have to be sustaining severe injuries for that clause to kick in)... and you have a very hard time making the case that TM had a "reasonable" fear for his life being followed if people are currently rejecting that Zimmerman suffering head wounds and a bloody nose didn't have a "reasonable" fear.

I really doubt that just because you perceive a threat that gives you just cause to assault someone. Being followed is almost assuredly not just cause to escalate to a physical confrontation.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

The chase doesn't matter. I've explained why.

The chase is what caused TM to stop and defend himself. TM didn't knock on GZ's door and start hitting him. You may think that GZ chasing TM is irrelevant to the situation, I can assure you it is relevant.

 

[IrishLax]

Also, it has been readily established that TM tried to get away from Zimmerman from many angles. On the phone with 911 Zimmerman states that Martin takes off running. Per Rachel's testimony, Martin told her on the phone he tried to evade Zimmerman.

So if Zimmerman just doesn't pursue at this point everyone is alive and it's no big deal. But he did pursue and now you have this cluster eff. And he deserves to shoulder a lot of blame for that.

At the same time, anyone who tries to argue that someone walking around alone at night in a neighborhood where they don't live while it is raining outside isn't "suspicious" regardless of ethnicity is crazy. At my apartment building we regularly call the cops if anyone is seen in the parking area who isn't a resident or otherwise looks "suspicious" simply because we've had bikes stolen and vehicles broken into. It's not like he had to be some super-bigot with murder on his mind to pursue Martin... he just had to be a concerned member of the neighborhood watch that made poor choices.

 

[military_irish]

The chase is what caused TM to stop and defend himself. TM didn't knock on GZ's door and start hitting him. You may think that GZ chasing TM is irrelevant to the situation, I can assure you it is relevant.

Not to jump in the middle of this but if someone is "chasing" me I will stop and ask them what their deal is. From the testimony of the female witness she "heard" Zimmerman ask "what are you doing around here" or something to that effect. If that was me, I would just would just say, "oh I am headed to my fathers house"

And I can almost guarantee this trial would not be in progress.

 

[IrishLax]

The chase is what caused TM to stop and defend himself. TM didn't knock on GZ's door and start hitting him. You may think that GZ chasing TM is irrelevant to the situation, I can assure you it is relevant.

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.

 

[IrishLax]

Not to jump in the middle of this but if someone is "chasing" me I will stop and ask them what their deal is. From the testimony of the female witness she "heard" Zimmerman ask "what are you doing around here" or something to that effect. If that was me, I would just would just say, "oh I am headed to my fathers house"

And I can almost guarantee this trial would not be in progress.

YUP. The reasonable response would've been a discussion. You are NOT justified in assaulting someone because they are following you and ask you a question. That makes no sense at all.

 

[jmurphy75]

Also, it has been readily established that TM tried to get away from Zimmerman from many angles. On the phone with 911 Zimmerman states that Martin takes off running. Per Rachel's testimony, Martin told her on the phone he tried to evade Zimmerman.

So if Zimmerman just doesn't pursue at this point everyone is alive and it's no big deal. But he did pursue and now you have this cluster eff. And he deserves to shoulder a lot of blame for that.

At the same time, anyone who tries to argue that someone walking around alone at night in a neighborhood where they don't live while it is raining outside isn't "suspicious" regardless of ethnicity is crazy. At my apartment building we regularly call the cops if anyone is seen in the parking area who isn't a resident or otherwise looks "suspicious" simply because we've had bikes stolen and vehicles broken into. It's not like he had to be some super-bigot with murder on his mind to pursue Martin... he just had to be a concerned member of the neighborhood watch that made poor choices.

I agree, I have followed suspicious persons in my neighborhood before and none took off running. Most people if they belong will approach you and are quite appreciative that you are looking after the neighborhood, especially if there have been recent break ins.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

This is incredibly circular logic then (and conflicts with everything that has been said in the trial). I've seen it stated probably a half dozen times today alone watching coverage that for you to have the right to "stand your ground" you have to have a reasonable fear for your life (i.e. even if Zimmerman was getting beat up, he would have to be sustaining severe injuries for that clause to kick in)... and you have a very hard time making the case that TM had a "reasonable" fear for his life being followed if people are currently rejecting that Zimmerman suffering head wounds and a bloody nose didn't have a "reasonable" fear.

I really doubt that just because you perceive a threat that gives you just cause to assault someone. Being followed is almost assuredly not just cause to escalate to a physical confrontation.

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.

 

[Wild Bill]

Trust me, not wrong. It may be flawed, but it is 100% subjective.

You're wrong. The statute requires both.