s2s2s2: Given the lack of evidence to prove against SYG, and the fact it is an election year for judges in FL, I'd go for dismissal.

If it's an election year, wouldn't the argument be that no judge would want to be viewed as the guy who threw out this case?

tirob: This scenario is conjecture, of course--as is yours.

Damn straight.

Now someone give me a link to the cellphone video someone must have taken.

9beers: tirob: You were doing all right up to this point.

Well lets hear it then. How can we confirm anything that Trayvon's girlfriend said?

It's also curious that she says that she didn't hear screams or a gunshot. Martin's phone magically hung up on it's own when it was supposedly knocked out of his hand?

1. I can't based on the evidence that has been made public so far.

2. I don't know. I've lost cellphone connections when my phone has been jarred and even when it hasn't.

PoochUMD: tirob: The wind and the rustling may have stopped but that in itself is no sign that Zimmerman cut off his pursuit. He could have been walking around looking for Martin at a slower pace during the last part of his conversation with the dispatcher, unless he had a Gerald Fordesque "can't walk and chew gum at the same time" disability.

I don't know what is "likely." Both of the scenarios you posit are conjecture.

Perhaps he slowly walked around the area while answering the questions. But is that what someone would do if they were actively chasing someone who they last saw running away? Can it even still be called pursing?

1. Maybe. 2. Yes.

Headso: Silly Jesus: charging someone with a crime for which there is inadequate evidence? That's not the definition of tough on crime.

ok that's the funniest post in the entire thread, have a great weekend everyone!

Thread over everyone. Our very own legal expert disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the legal expert community in the newspapers, on television, online and on the radio.

tirob: 9beers: tirob: You were doing all right up to this point.

Well lets hear it then. How can we confirm anything that Trayvon's girlfriend said?

It's also curious that she says that she didn't hear screams or a gunshot. Martin's phone magically hung up on it's own when it was supposedly knocked out of his hand?

1. I can't based on the evidence that has been made public so far.

2. I don't know. I've lost cellphone connections when my phone has been jarred and even when it hasn't.

She stated that she tried to call him back and there was no answer. So MOST LIKELY when the line went quiet(MAYBE FROM THE HEADSET BEING KNOCKED OFF) she hung up and redialed his number. That is the way I understood her statement and why I capitalized.

I'd like to address the whole "No blood on George" Theory.

Trayvon was wearing a hoodie, and likely another shirt. There is a good probability that was sufficient to contain and blood that would have come out*, immediately after the shot was fired. I am guessing George would have wanted to get up immediately.

*Probably didn't go anything like this:

s2s2s2: and blood

any*

karmaceutical: This is going to be the first Zimmy thread to not make it to 500 posts. I think we're turning the corner on this whole thing. What a relief.

Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: s2s2s2: Swinging

With that same logic I can go to TACO BELL, eat 3 burritos and a Mexican Pizza... track you down on the street and fart directly in your face.

HEY! I'm just minding my own business. No law that says I can't fart here. ...

You are correct. I cannot bash your head into the cement sidewalk in retaliation for you farting in my face. If I did, you would be justified in shooting me.

What's your point




Oh! I'm glad you asked.

My point is I can not be the aggressor in a situation that leads to violence and then claim a "STAND YOUR GROUND" defense. Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

copy/paste:

Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors

For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances:

The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or 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 (italics added).

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust "every reasonable means to escape such danger." Translation: under Florida law, the aggressor has a duty to retreat and cannot stand his or her ground.

Under Florida law an aggressor can use lethal force only under one additional circumstance -- when the aggressor indicates that he or she wants to end the confrontation, but the victim continues to fight. But Florida law requires that the aggressor "withdraw" from physical conduct and indicate to the victim a desire to retreat. In other words, the aggressor can use deadly force to defend himself or herself if, after indicating a desire to retreat, the victim will not permit the defendant to do so.

Zimmerman Was the Aggressor

The evidence shows that Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman also admitted to the 911 dispatcher that he was following Martin in his car. Although Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin seemed to be on drugs, Martin was actually having a coherent telephone conversation with his girlfriend. According to her testimony, Martin said that a man was following him and that he was trying to escape. Zimmerman, against the advice of the dispatcher, left his car to pursue a fleeing Martin on foot.

Under these circumstances, probable cause exists to charge Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin. Martin was simply returning home from a store. Because he initiated the aggression, Zimmerman does not have the right to claim self-defense or, consequently, to "stand his ground."

HAMMERTOE: -And- which Neighborhood Watch program's policies are you referring to? It's not a national organization, you know, with a homogenous nation-wide set of policies and bylaws.


National Neighborhood Watch Institute (new window)

An excerpt from the National Neighborhood Watch Institute home page:

National Neighborhood Watch Institute (NNWI) is the premier national supplier of Neighborhood Watch materials.
NNWI was the provider of the Sanford Florida sign seen so prominently in recent news coverage.

Our Participants Handbook states,
"Always remember that your responsibility is to report crime.
Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police/sheriff."

Neighborhood Watch participants act as additional eyes and ears for law enforcement.
They do not take the law into their own hands.
We Look Out For Each Other is our motto.

Click here to view or purchase our 32 page Participants Handbook. (new window)

Ya know, I think I've broken this case WIDE OPEN!!!!!

YEP!!! And according to my GED in Law - the above website might be liable for negligence resulting in ALL OF THIS!

There is NO WAY to view CRUCIAL INSTRUCTIONS contained in the Neighborhood Watch Participant's Handbook without ponying up the $3 and ordering one! :-O

OMG!!!!! There is NO WAY to view instructions ONLINE at no cost!!!! NO WAY!!!! (sounds of screaming)

People are being SLAUGHTERED in the STREETS because these CHEAP B*STARDS are holding out on the "how-to's" in order to turn a profit!!!!

What???? What're you blathering about?????

Oh.

Well there's THIS (new window).

excerpt:
Emphasize that Watch groups are not vigilantes and should not assume the role of the police.
Their duty is to ask neighbors to be alert, observant, and caring-and to report suspicious activity or crimes immediately to the police.

Yeah. Okay. I STILL say that last one is kinda vague . . . Could mean ANYTHING really!!!
And the whole LIST is just a bunch of SUGGESTIONS anyway . . .
It NEVER SAYS MUST NOT only "should not" . . .
It only . . . oh, fark it . . .



Okay, so maybe Zimmerman should have bought a Neighborhood Watch Participant's Handbook BEFORE the 9mm.

Well heck!



/loves it that the NNWI is so proud that it is "their sign" being prominently displayed in the Trayvon Martin news coverage! :-D Humans are hilarious!

SwingingJohnson: My point is I can not be the aggressor in a situation that leads to violence and then claim a "STAND YOUR GROUND" defense.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.-s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Where does it say that?

SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: s2s2s2: Swinging

With that same logic I can go to TACO BELL, eat 3 burritos and a Mexican Pizza... track you down on the street and fart directly in your face.

HEY! I'm just minding my own business. No law that says I can't fart here. ...

You are correct. I cannot bash your head into the cement sidewalk in retaliation for you farting in my face. If I did, you would be justified in shooting me.

What's your point

Oh! I'm glad you asked.

My point is I can not be the aggressor in a situation that leads to violence and then claim a "STAND YOUR GROUND" defense. Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

copy/paste:

Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors

For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances:

The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or 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 (italics added).

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust "every reasonable means to e ...

Not sure if you meant to contradict your own legal opinion with what you copy pasted or not, but here is the relevant part. And Zimmerman screaming would be a good indication that he wanted the confrontation to end.

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust "every reasonable means to escape such danger." Translation: under Florida law, the aggressor has a duty to retreat and cannot stand his or her ground.

Under Florida law an aggressor can use lethal force only under one additional circumstance -- when the aggressor indicates that he or she wants to end the confrontation, but the victim continues to fight. But Florida law requires that the aggressor "withdraw" from physical conduct and indicate to the victim a desire to retreat. In other words, the aggressor can use deadly force to defend himself or herself if, after indicating a desire to retreat, the victim will not permit the defendant to do so.

For further reading, here's what Dershowitz said about it. And this has been echoed by many a lawyer and judge that I've heard/seen/read.

"If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin. This would almost certainly constitute provocation.

But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was."

s2s2s2: (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

Very good post s2s2s2!

Now read everything you posted after your line I quoted here.

SwingingJohnson: s2s2s2: (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

Very good post s2s2s2!

Now read everything you posted after your line I quoted here.

I read it first. But it's no matter. You already explained why you were wrong.

SwingingJohnson: Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

Zimmerman's attorney can't contain his erection knowing that this is the best the prosecution has.

Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: s2s2s2: Swinging

With that same logic I can go to TACO BELL, eat 3 burritos and a Mexican Pizza... track you down on the street and fart directly in your face.

HEY! I'm just minding my own business. No law that says I can't fart here. ...

You are correct. I cannot bash your head into the cement sidewalk in retaliation for you farting in my face. If I did, you would be justified in shooting me.

What's your point

Oh! I'm glad you asked.

My point is I can not be the aggressor in a situation that leads to violence and then claim a "STAND YOUR GROUND" defense. Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

copy/paste:

Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors

For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances:

The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or 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 (italics added).

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust "every reasona ...

C'mon man... how great could that perception of bodily damage have been if we can't even make out a scratch on the guy in the police video.

Not even great enough for a photo or 2 to put in as evidence why the guy was justifiably shot and killed?

This case is FUBAR and I hope the trial gets it somewhat un-FUBARED.

All of us arguing here here have too little ammo on both sides for a decent fight so I guess I'll just call you a poopy head until evidence comes up to suggest that you're not.

s2s2s2: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity

That is the part self defense centers on, and what that doofus is missing.

Following someone, even asking them a question, is not unlawful activity, ergo not "aggression".

IF Martin started assault and battery he is the aggressor.

It is a possibility. These people are pretending that it is not possible.

Having someone behind you, going in the same direction (following), will not induce fear for personal safety in a reasonable person.

Having someone beat the shiat out of you will induce fear in a reasonable person.

The only thing that goes against that scenario so far is doofus like presumption, pure and utter speculation, lacking all manner of evidence. They WANT to Believe.
I bet they have opinions about streetlights, and professional wrestling is still real to them.

I want to believe people are smarter than that, but evidence suggests otherwise.

Silly Jesus: But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was."

Which is also supported by an eyewitness. Fark, I could win this case, while drunk and high on blow.

9beers: Silly Jesus: But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was."

Which is also supported by an eyewitness. Fark, I could win this case, while drunk and high on blow.

Judging by the number of conclusions you have been jumping to in this thread, I suspect that you are both of those things right now.

"John" said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was striking Zimmerman. At no time has "John" asserted that he thought that Zimmerman was in danger of death or of great bodily harm.

9beers: SwingingJohnson: Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

Zimmerman's attorney can't contain his erection knowing that this is the best the prosecution has.

Despite being advised by the dispatcher he spoke with to not pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman did so anyway.

His whole case may depend on the time he ended the 311 call and the time the 911 calls from the residents began.

What was Zimmerman doing in that time period that put him around the block from his SUV and in that walkway between the condos?

Was he hunting?

Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do he would have been back in his car waiting like a good Neighborhood Watch person and the kid would not be dead.

Disposable income?

;)

tirob: 9beers: Silly Jesus: But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was."

Which is also supported by an eyewitness. Fark, I could win this case, while drunk and high on blow.

Judging by the number of conclusions you have been jumping to in this thread, I suspect that you are both of those things right now.

"John" said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was striking Zimmerman. At no time has "John" asserted that he thought that Zimmerman was in danger of death or of great bodily harm.

John doesn't need to make that assertion. Not that he was asked.

Straw man.

s2s2s2: SwingingJohnson: What was in first sentence in my post?

Go ahead... take your time. Sound out all the words. Let me make the letters big for you:

So the detective was there? Well now you have your dereliction of duty case!

Either the detective was going by what Zimmerman said or he made it up? I don't know. Hopefully we will all know eventually.

tirob: "John" said that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was striking Zimmerman. At no time has "John" asserted that he thought that Zimmerman was in danger of death or of great bodily harm.

Does your ass hurt?

Big gap between races in U.S. on Trayvon Martin killing

91 percent of African-Americans says he was unjustly killed, while just 35 percent of whites* thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

*much higher on Fark.

SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

ChuDogg: PoochUMD: ChuDogg: 1) There is simply not enough time for Zimmerman to chase and confront Martin
2) There is simply not enough distance for Zimmerman to chase and confront Martin.

[www.wagist.com image 600x400]

[static.globalgrind.com image 540x591]
[www.bagnewsnotes.com image 540x345]

Notice these aren't "thug" pictures it's just the truth. Treyvon is a skinny dude but he doesn't look weak by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile on Zimmerman's side

[www.theblaze.com image 620x434]

We have a short and lanky guy. Even his lawyer said he was surprised how much shorter he was in real life than what he had thought. His lawyer said he was 6'2. Martin has been described between 6'1 and 6'3, don't know if that's been confirmed. But T ...

Your right. Physically Zimmerman looks like no match for Trayvon.

It looks like Trayvon could easily beat the crap out of Zimmerman.

So it would be unreasonable for Zimmerman to even think of getting out of his car to confront this dangerous looking hooded individual...

UNLESS...

...unless Zimmerman was armed with a loaded gun. Than it would seem reasonable and even it out a bit. Right?

(these assholes are always getting away!)

SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: s2s2s2: Swinging

With that same logic I can go to TACO BELL, eat 3 burritos and a Mexican Pizza... track you down on the street and fart directly in your face.

HEY! I'm just minding my own business. No law that says I can't fart here. ...

You are correct. I cannot bash your head into the cement sidewalk in retaliation for you farting in my face. If I did, you would be justified in shooting me.

What's your point

Oh! I'm glad you asked.

My point is I can not be the aggressor in a situation that leads to violence and then claim a "STAND YOUR GROUND" defense. Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

copy/paste:

Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors

For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances:

The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or 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 (italics added).

In other words, aggressors can only use lethal force if the victim's response is so great that it would cause a reasonable person to fear death or great bodily injury. But in such a situation, the aggressor must also exhaust " ...

The police report states that he received medical attention for his head and that there appeared to be bruising. It's arguable whether or not anything is shown on his head in the video at the jail that night.

What isn't arguable is that Martin was on top of the guy on the sidewalk and there were injuries to the back of the head of Zimmerman. You can hit your head straight down on the sidewalk and not sustain huge lacerations. I don't know where the notion came from that a head can't be slammed into a surface like a sidewalk without leaving huge cuts. Even if Zimmerman wasn't in fear of being killed from his head hitting the sidewalk, it would be very reasonable for him to think that he might be knocked unconscious (thereby completely vulnerable to Martin).

1. You are stating that there isn't currently enough evidence to know how things went down one way or the other. ( I disagree, I happen to think that all available evidence favors Zimmerman, especially since it's the burden of the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen how he said that it did and he's the only available witness for the majority of the episode, but just for arguments sake...)
2. Experts are saying that it is highly unlikely that there is some sort of smoking gun in this case that hasn't come to light yet in the police report or affidavit or through witnesses etc.

Therefore, Zimmerman either will be released by the judge before this thing even gets started or he will be found not guilty at a later date.

Must you, beers?

Why?

Flailing at ghosts?

Poor practice, man.

I wish you the best.

Peace out.

;)

omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity

That is the part self defense centers on, and what that doofus is missing.

Following someone, even asking them a question, is not unlawful activity, ergo not "aggression".

IF Martin started assault and battery he is the aggressor.

It is a possibility. These people are pretending that it is not possible.

Having someone behind you, going in the same direction (following), will not induce fear for personal safety in a reasonable person.

Having someone beat the shiat out of you will induce fear in a reasonable person.

The only thing that goes against that scenario so far is doofus like presumption, pure and utter speculation, lacking all manner of evidence. They WANT to Believe.
I bet they have opinions about streetlights, and professional wrestling is still real to them.

I want to believe people are smarter than that, but evidence suggests otherwise.

You're basing your argument on the phantom witness again.

But if that did indeed happen, with Trayvon beating the crap out of him, Zimmerman purposely and directly put himself in that situation and he did it with a loaded gun.

/"These assholes are always getting away!"

SwingingJohnson: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

Zimmerman's attorney can't contain his erection knowing that this is the best the prosecution has.

Despite being advised by the dispatcher he spoke with to not pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman did so anyway.

His whole case may depend on the time he ended the 311 call and the time the 911 calls from the residents began.

What was Zimmerman doing in that time period that put him around the block from his SUV and in that walkway between the condos?

Was he hunting?

Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do he would have been back in his car waiting like a good Neighborhood Watch person and the kid would not be dead.

If Trayvon went home instead of lurking, he would be alive.

If the cashier at the convenience store was really bad with the cash register and had delayed Trayvon leaving by 5 minutes he never would have run into Zimmerman.

Weeee, this is fun.

9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

SwingingJohnson: ChuDogg: PoochUMD: ChuDogg: 1) There is simply not enough time for Zimmerman to chase and confront Martin
2) There is simply not enough distance for Zimmerman to chase and confront Martin.

[www.wagist.com image 600x400]

[static.globalgrind.com image 540x591]
[www.bagnewsnotes.com image 540x345]

Notice these aren't "thug" pictures it's just the truth. Treyvon is a skinny dude but he doesn't look weak by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile on Zimmerman's side

[www.theblaze.com image 620x434]

We have a short and lanky guy. Even his lawyer said he was surprised how much shorter he was in real life than what he had thought. His lawyer said he was 6'2. Martin has been described between 6'1 and 6'3, don't know if that's been confirmed. But T ...

Your right. Physically Zimmerman looks like no match for Trayvon.

It looks like Trayvon could easily beat the crap out of Zimmerman.

So it would be unreasonable for Zimmerman to even think of getting out of his car to confront this dangerous looking hooded individual...

UNLESS...

...unless Zimmerman was armed with a loaded gun. Than it would seem reasonable and even it out a bit. Right?

(these assholes are always getting away!)

Why are you so hung up on this guy legally having a gun as though it's somehow relevant to his guilt?

Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

Zimmerman's attorney can't contain his erection knowing that this is the best the prosecution has.

Despite being advised by the dispatcher he spoke with to not pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman did so anyway.

His whole case may depend on the time he ended the 311 call and the time the 911 calls from the residents began.

What was Zimmerman doing in that time period that put him around the block from his SUV and in that walkway between the condos?

Was he hunting?

Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do he would have been back in his car waiting like a good Neighborhood Watch person and the kid would not be dead.

If Trayvon went home instead of lurking, he would be alive.

If the cashier at the convenience store was really bad with the cash register and had delayed Trayvon leaving by 5 minutes he never would have run into Zimmerman.

Weeee, this is fun.

Yes... but then we are back to another possibility. Trayvon didn't live there. It's very possible he was lost in that condo complex.

1. It's dark and raining

2. He's being followed by someone in an SUV.

3. He runs to try to lose this stranger that is following him.

4. Now he realizes this person is not giving up and is now following him on foot.

5. Trayvon may now be lost in this condo complex and hiding from this person who is pursuing him. The kid is scared. If he wasn't scared he would not have ran like Zimmerman told the cops on the phone.

6. The HIDE & GO SEEK game ends... someone is screaming HELP! HELP! BANG, he's dead.

Who was doing the hiding here?

Who was doing the seeking?

SwingingJohnson: omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2: (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity

That is the part self defense centers on, and what that doofus is missing.

Following someone, even asking them a question, is not unlawful activity, ergo not "aggression".

IF Martin started assault and battery he is the aggressor.

It is a possibility. These people are pretending that it is not possible.

Having someone behind you, going in the same direction (following), will not induce fear for personal safety in a reasonable person.

Having someone beat the shiat out of you will induce fear in a reasonable person.

The only thing that goes against that scenario so far is doofus like presumption, pure and utter speculation, lacking all manner of evidence. They WANT to Believe.
I bet they have opinions about streetlights, and professional wrestling is still real to them.

I want to believe people are smarter than that, but evidence suggests otherwise.

You're basing your argument on the phantom witness again.

But if that did indeed happen, with Trayvon beating the crap out of him, Zimmerman purposely and directly put himself in that situation and he did it with a loaded gun.

/"These assholes are always getting away!"

We have already shown you where the law states that Zimmerman did nothing wrong in this scenario. Are you just ignoring it and being willfully ignorant?

Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2:

We have already shown you where the law states that Zimmerman did nothing wrong in this scenario. Are you just ignoring it and being willfully ignorant?


HIDE & GO SEEK game ends... someone is screaming HELP! HELP! BANG, he's dead.

Who was doing the hiding here?

Who was doing the seeking?

Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Look beneath you, biatch.

You just frikked.

*sigh*

;)

SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Martin's girlfriend says that he was trying to escape Zimmerman (not vice versa).

Zimmerman's attorney can't contain his erection knowing that this is the best the prosecution has.

Despite being advised by the dispatcher he spoke with to not pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman did so anyway.

His whole case may depend on the time he ended the 311 call and the time the 911 calls from the residents began.

What was Zimmerman doing in that time period that put him around the block from his SUV and in that walkway between the condos?

Was he hunting?

Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do he would have been back in his car waiting like a good Neighborhood Watch person and the kid would not be dead.

If Trayvon went home instead of lurking, he would be alive.

If the cashier at the convenience store was really bad with the cash register and had delayed Trayvon leaving by 5 minutes he never would have run into Zimmerman.

Weeee, this is fun.

Yes... but then we are back to another possibility. Trayvon didn't live there. It's very possible he was lost in that condo complex.

1. It's dark and raining

2. He's being followed by someone in an SUV.

3. He runs to try to lose this stranger that is following him.

4. Now he realizes this person is not giving up and is now following him on foot.

5. Trayvon may now be lost in this condo complex and hiding from this person who is pursuing him. The kid is scared. If he wasn't scared he would not have ran like Zimmerman told the cops on the phone.

6. The HIDE & GO SEEK game ends... someone is screaming HELP! HELP! BANG, he's dead.

Who was doing the hiding here?

Who was doing the seeking?

None of that matters. You keep trying to make it about the "stalking" and the "man with a scary gun" and the dispatcher etc. All that matters in any of this nonsense is the actual physical confrontation. Everything that Zimmerman did up to the point of the physical altercation was perfectly legal, and in my experience, not irrational, not that it matters here.

You can't try to kill someone for following you. You can, however, kill someone for trying to kill you.

That's the entire case right there. Zimmerman says it happened this way and a witness backed it up. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Zimmerman and/or the witness is lying. I don't think that that can be done based upon everything that is currently available.

SwingingJohnson: Silly Jesus: SwingingJohnson: omeganuepsilon: s2s2s2:

We have already shown you where the law states that Zimmerman did nothing wrong in this scenario. Are you just ignoring it and being willfully ignorant?


HIDE & GO SEEK game ends... someone is screaming HELP! HELP! BANG, he's dead.

Who was doing the hiding here?

Who was doing the seeking?

Huh? Why does it matter?

See above.

Indubitably: Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Look beneath you, biatch.

You just frikked.

*sigh*

;)

P.S. I just Scientifically-Calculatingly-Holistically-Out-rightedly-Obfuscated-Los ered-you...

HAMMERTOE: All Martin had to say was, "I'm staying in that house right *there*," as he was within sight of where he was going.

I'm a "walker" and weird strangers suddenly following ya at night (and during the day) happens WAY MORE than one would think.

Gotta say though I NEVER respond to a weirdo following me with a cheery,

"Well, hiya perv! How're you doin' this fine evening?
Say! I live RIGHT OVER THERE!
Care to creep in for a fresh danish and a cup a coffee???
It is chilly this evening! And what's with this rain huh?
Come on in and let's toss that trench coat in the dryer for ya. Get it all dry and toasty!"

SERIOUSLY!!!?????

Some folks got ZERO street smarts!

So, for the record,
If you are EVER on foot and notice you are being FOLLOWED:

1) Do NOT attempt to strike up a friendly chat with the unknown psycho following you.

(and . . .this is REAL IMPORTANT . . . so LISTEN UP!)

2) Do NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES show the psycho following you WHERE YOU LIVE!!!

Indubitably: Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Look beneath you, biatch.

You just frikked.

*sigh*

;)

Um, I'm still lost. I looked up "frikked" and it says something about changing accounts because someone "pwned" you. So I just changed accounts? Or someone else did?

WorthNoting: HAMMERTOE: All Martin had to say was, "I'm staying in that house right *there*," as he was within sight of where he was going.

I'm a "walker" and weird strangers suddenly following ya at night (and during the day) happens WAY MORE than one would think.

Gotta say though I NEVER respond to a weirdo following me with a cheery,

"Well, hiya perv! How're you doin' this fine evening?
Say! I live RIGHT OVER THERE!
Care to creep in for a fresh danish and a cup a coffee???
It is chilly this evening! And what's with this rain huh?
Come on in and let's toss that trench coat in the dryer for ya. Get it all dry and toasty!"

SERIOUSLY!!!?????

Some folks got ZERO street smarts!

So, for the record,
If you are EVER on foot and notice you are being FOLLOWED:

1) Do NOT attempt to strike up a friendly chat with the unknown psycho following you.

(and . . .this is REAL IMPORTANT . . . so LISTEN UP!)

2) Do NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES show the psycho following you WHERE YOU LIVE!!!

*or?*

wut?

psycho picks wrong patsy?

grrr.

So, does this make you feel powerful?

I feel fear.

It's not mine.

;)

P.S. My door is always open if i answer it.

Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Look beneath you, biatch.

You just frikked.

*sigh*

;)

Um, I'm still lost. I looked up "frikked" and it says something about changing accounts because someone "pwned" you. So I just changed accounts? Or someone else did?

Heh.

I make shiat up daily, and peeps copy me.

I copy them.

We inter-dis-communicate...

;)

WorthNoting: HAMMERTOE: All Martin had to say was, "I'm staying in that house right *there*," as he was within sight of where he was going.

I'm a "walker" and weird strangers suddenly following ya at night (and during the day) happens WAY MORE than one would think.

Gotta say though I NEVER respond to a weirdo following me with a cheery,

"Well, hiya perv! How're you doin' this fine evening?
Say! I live RIGHT OVER THERE!
Care to creep in for a fresh danish and a cup a coffee???
It is chilly this evening! And what's with this rain huh?
Come on in and let's toss that trench coat in the dryer for ya. Get it all dry and toasty!"

SERIOUSLY!!!?????

Some folks got ZERO street smarts!

So, for the record,
If you are EVER on foot and notice you are being FOLLOWED:

1) Do NOT attempt to strike up a friendly chat with the unknown psycho following you.

(and . . .this is REAL IMPORTANT . . . so LISTEN UP!)

2) Do NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES show the psycho following you WHERE YOU LIVE!!!

No shiat.

I love all the people who think that Trayvon was obligated to "Yessum, boss" this guy just because he had a gun.

You find me suspicious and start following me? Unless you're an officer of the law, go fark yourself. I don't need to tell you a gotdamn thing.

Indubitably: Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: Indubitably: Silly Jesus: 9beers: SwingingJohnson: Because if he had done what to police operator told him to do

He did do what the dispatcher suggested which is evidenced by him answering "OK" and the fact that you can hear him stop running on the tape. Prove that he did anything other than stand there for a brief moment before starting to return to his vehicle.

Furthermore, the dispatcher asked where Martin was going and where he was. Both things would make Zimmerman think that they wanted him to keep Martin in sight. What the dispatcher said was contradictory. Which one was he supposed to listen to? Should he have known to heed the advice that you would want him to heed?

It doesn't matter either way though. The dispatcher can't give orders.

No, but i can: cease and desist.

That is...

;)

?

Look beneath you, biatch.

You just frikked.

*sigh*

;)

Um, I'm still lost. I looked up "frikked" and it says something about changing accounts because someone "pwned" you. So I just changed accounts? Or someone else did?

Heh.

I make shiat up daily, and peeps copy me.

I copy them.

We inter-dis-communicate...

;)

P.S. I am a cyber-poet. Whar you?

At point 'E' Zimmerman ended his call with police. Zimmerman said he was going to meet the police when they got there. He had already agreed to do what the cop told him and not follow the suspect.

But instead of going back to his car he detoured and walked up to point 'F' where the altercation took place.

So who is confronting who here?