If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   George Zimmerman's legal team has been digging up some less-than-flattering background information about Trayvon Martin-but one story that made the rounds Friday, turns out not to be true   (newser.com) divider line 589
    More: Followup, George Zimmerman  
•       •       •

16726 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2013 at 1:48 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-03 02:12:37 PM

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


Yeah gee, it's almost as if he felt threatened or something. If only there was some word for that.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:32 PM

AiryAnne: Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

You know that media parody poster about Glocks? That's how this works. Anyone accused against a black man is white.

White (Ancestors from western Europe)
White (Parent from Mexico, Parent from Spain)
White (Asian who attends predominantly white school and is named Jeff)
White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)
White (Not black)
White (Hispanic)
White (Jew accused of a crime and is named Jeff)


Everyone but the Asian in that list is white. This isn't "das Vaterland," we're all mutts here.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:34 PM

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.


The guy with the gun was more afraid of the unarmed kid he was following. The unarmed high school kid had no reason to fear the adult with the gun that was following him for a couple blocks.
 
2013-06-03 02:13:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: No they don't. The prosecution just has to prove that there is no evidence of justification.



You should stop.  You are wrong.

See Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).  The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:01 PM

Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.


What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:03 PM

Mrbogey: Would you be okay with someone punching you in the face for about 40 seconds or so while you're pinned to the ground? If not, then you're on Zimmerman's side here.


To me, it honestly depends on who instigated the fight.

If it was Martin, then I would be sympathetic to Zimmerman. But if it was Zimmerman who started the fight, then I have no sympathy over the fact that he got himself into a dangerous situation that he had every chance to avoid.
 
2013-06-03 02:14:13 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Tatsuma: nekom:If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:12 PM

Tatsuma: Triple Oak: You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority,

He's not white when will farking idiots try to pretend that he is? For fark's sake this is a white guy?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


Of course he is.  You can't have a case based on racism unless at least one of the people involved is a white male.  I think that's in the Constitution, somewhere in the back.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:15 PM

ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.


From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.


That's Florida law, but every state I'm aware of has a similar provision.  Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:31 PM

Phinn: The Defendant only needs to ASSERT a credible defense of self-defense, and that assertion can be based on anything, including the cross-examination of the State's witnesses, or be inherent in the allegations of the State themselves.  That minimal burden is clearly met here, since Zimmerman asserted self-defense as early as in his first police interview.  It's not even debatable.

Zimmerman does NOT need to present any evidence.  He may choose to do so, but the burden is definitely on the State to disprove his claim of self-defense.


In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.
 
2013-06-03 02:15:35 PM

bulldg4life: obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.

The guy with the gun was more afraid of the unarmed kid he was following. The unarmed high school kid had no reason to fear the adult with the gun that was following him for a couple blocks.


Trayvon Martin had a reason to be scared because he was being stalked by his killer.
 
2013-06-03 02:16:04 PM
I forget, what kind of past dirt has been dug up on Zimmerman?  Just wondering if the smear campaign goes both ways.
 
2013-06-03 02:16:59 PM

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.


Other than that, you're spot on.
 
2013-06-03 02:17:10 PM

dittybopper: That's Florida law, but every state I'm aware of has a similar provision.  Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.


I've seen no such proof or evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw.
 
2013-06-03 02:17:21 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.


You have a right to confront someone with gun drawn? Really?
 
2013-06-03 02:18:06 PM
The question shouldn't be if Zimmerman is Guilty, he is definitely guilty as hell.

You cannot provoke a confrontation and then yell Self defense, self defense. He left his home armed. He stalked a teenager. He was told by police not to pursue. He chose to pursue, he chose to confront and he chose to end a confrontation he provoked with deadly force.

How this is even being argued is stupid. It is at the very least manslaughter and worst murder. He should be locked up it is just a matter of for how many years.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:18 PM

dittybopper: ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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 ...


No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:52 PM
cameroncrazy1984:
In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.

First of all, I don't think it matters who actually started the fight.  What matters is whether or not a jury believes that a person in his position at that exact moment could reasonably fear for his life.  Second of all, it is not AT ALL clear who started the fight.  Of the two people who saw the whole thing, one is dead and the other is being tried for murder in his death.  So unfortunately, we'll never know the entire truth with any degree of certainty.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Mrbogey: This comment you made is one of the largest "head in the sand" moments I've ever seen on Fark. Zimmerman was pinned under Martin. Accept it and form your opinions around the facts and stop trying to form the facts around your opinions.

What's the proof? You have zero proof of this assertion, and neither does the defendant. Accept it and...oh who am I kidding, you're religious. You believe anything without evidence as long as it confirms your biases.


What's the proof? The head injuries consistent with the story. The witnesses who saw someone pinned. The 911 calls where Zimmerman can be heard yelling. If Zimmerman was on top of Martin and punching him, Martin must have near Wolverine level healing powers. I'd be amazed a bullet took down such a tough guy.
 
2013-06-03 02:18:57 PM

MFAWG: Except that Zimmerman has already stated that he initiated the confrontation.


No he did not. He said Martin attacked him.
 
2013-06-03 02:19:05 PM

ongbok: Tatsuma: nekom: That's true, but there aren't any witnesses contrary to his story either, and he did have some lacerations on his head.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, there are three different witnesses who saw him on his back with Martin on top attacking him and that he was screaming for help.

He's going to walk.

Do you have a link that a witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help? All the witnesses said somebody was screaming for help, but couldn't say who.


A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911".[149] He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Just below the links to the 911 calls, you can follow the citations yourself. There was at least one other witness that said Zimmerman was the one on the bottom, IIRC. And even if you disregard the witness testimony, the physical evidence says that Zimmerman did not fight back at all - there wasn't a mark on Martin.
 
2013-06-03 02:19:47 PM

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


Oooh.  That's a *PERFECT* troll.  Kudos.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:02 PM

obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.


And that amount of defense is limited to the amount of force used against you.

That's what's at question here, and will be a major part of the case.  Who struck who first.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:13 PM

bulldg4life: I have no idea why Martin might have reacted violently when some guy that was chasing him showed up with a gun in his hand and asked him what he was doing.


I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:15 PM

obamadidcoke: dittybopper: ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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 li ...


No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.

Well, if you can do that, you might as well just skip the formalities and just start shooting.
 
2013-06-03 02:20:17 PM

kindms: The question shouldn't be if Zimmerman is Guilty, he is definitely guilty as hell.

You cannot provoke a confrontation and then yell Self defense, self defense. He left his home armed. He stalked a teenager. He was told by police not to pursue. He chose to pursue, he chose to confront and he chose to end a confrontation he provoked with deadly force.

How this is even being argued is stupid. It is at the very least manslaughter and worst murder. He should be locked up it is just a matter of for how many years.


Yes, I agree
 
2013-06-03 02:20:19 PM
Personally I think that the fact that we get to use the tragic death of a young man to fling poo at each other is the silver lining in this story
 
2013-06-03 02:22:18 PM
Fight!! Fight!!
A black and a white
If the white don't win
We all jump in
 
2013-06-03 02:22:22 PM
He's gonna walk, that's for certain. The only thing undecided at this point is if the media is able to whip people into enough of a frenzy over the verdict that they riot. I know they'll sure as hell try.
 
2013-06-03 02:22:24 PM

AiryAnne: White (One black parent, one white white parent and raised in a predominantly white neighborhood)


www.whitehouse.gov
 
2013-06-03 02:23:01 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Darth_Lukecash: Tatsuma: nekom:If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

The problem is that Zimmerman had every right to confront him. Should he have done it? No, but that doesn't change the fact that confronting someone on the street is perfectly legal. Zimmerman had just as much right to follow him around as he did to be there.


You don't think it matters how you confront somebody on the street?

For example if you come running full speed at somebody yelling at them, if they knock you out, are they in the wrong? Where they wrong to fear you and defend themselves?

Or if you are following a person at night for a few blocks on an empty street, and don't say word to them, and you don't decide to confront them until they get freaked out and run from you, are they wrong to think you are a threat and defend themselves?

We all know that Zimmerman didn't walk up to Trayvon and say, "hey kid do you live here?" or "What are you doing here?" He waited until he was freaked out and running from him to "confront" him.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:16 PM

Darth_Lukecash: If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.


Without defending Zimmerman, or even having an opinion on this, that's odd reasoning. I am not aware that any citizen needs "authorization" to approach another citizen. Nor is there any such concept that a 9/11 dispatcher can tell a private citzen what they can and cannot do.

It may be a poor word choice, but it is alarming to see someone so willing to say that a policeman on a phone could take away your "right" to confront someone.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:19 PM

Mrbogey: The witnesses who saw someone pinned. The 911 calls where Zimmerman can be heard yelling.


There are not multiple witnesses. You and Tats seem to be inventing tons of backstory allowing you to hold a false position.

There is one anonymous witness that has never been heard from again that exactly mirrors Zimmerman's story.

The other witnesses vary from being a small kid that was pressured in to providing information, two people that heard screaming and saw Zimmerman in the aftermath, and one person that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin but claimed it was too dark to see anything else. And, of course, someone on the phone with Martin that states Zimmerman initiated a confrontation.

Multiple witnesses seeing Zimmerman pinned is not (nor has it ever been) true.
 
2013-06-03 02:23:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: In this case it's very easy to disprove such claim. The prosecutor need only prove that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. It's not justifiable homicide if you start a fight you can't win.



Again you are wrong.  Literally everything you have said here has been wrong.

First, as a matter of evidence, there is none (that has been released to the media) that says that anyone other than Zimmerman and Martin know who "started the confrontation."  That's actually a very poor use of words to describe the REAL legal question here -- who first reasonably believed that the other posed a credible threat of imminent injury or death?

No one (that I know of) saw that happen, other than Martin and Zimmerman.  Martin is dead.  Even DeeDee the girlfriend only heard them saying "Why are you following me?" followed by "What are you doing here?," which is how Zimmerman described the events, too.  That alone is perfectly legal, and not grounds for either to use force.

As a result, no one is alive to offer proof that Zimmerman posed an imminent threat to Martin, sufficient to justify Martin's use of force.

Also, even if Zimmerman had (as is often imagined here on Fark) initiated a physical, imminent threat by grabbing Martin, then Zimmerman could STILL use lethal force if he had no opportunity to retreat.  See F.S. sec. 766.041 (Use of Force by Aggressor).
 
2013-06-03 02:24:31 PM

meathome: obamadidcoke: In my state if you follow me and harass me I can defend myself.

And that amount of defense is limited to the amount of force used against you.

That's what's at question here, and will be a major part of the case.  Who struck who first.


obamadidcoke: kindms: The question shouldn't be if Zimmerman is Guilty, he is definitely guilty as hell.

You cannot provoke a confrontation and then yell Self defense, self defense. He left his home armed. He stalked a teenager. He was told by police not to pursue. He chose to pursue, he chose to confront and he chose to end a confrontation he provoked with deadly force.

How this is even being argued is stupid. It is at the very least manslaughter and worst murder. He should be locked up it is just a matter of for how many years.

Yes, I agree


Not true. If you chase me with a bat I can defend myself with anything from a shotgun to a flame thrower. The law doesn't require proportionality in defense.
 
2013-06-03 02:24:33 PM

PsyLord: I forget, what kind of past dirt has been dug up on Zimmerman?  Just wondering if the smear campaign goes both ways.


His arrest record, for one.
 
2013-06-03 02:24:51 PM

obamadidcoke: kortex: Less than flattering?  Nice way of putting it.  The kid was a gangster in training and a stupid thug.  He shouldn't have attacked someone if he didn't want to get shot.  Cause, effect.

He was harassed and followed at night dosen't this kid have a right to self defense.


You have a right to self defense if someone attacks you.  Five years ago, some crazy woman thought I was someone else and followed me home.  She the started screaming at me about her children and such.  I called the police who arrested her for harassment.  I didn't attack her.  Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself.  It's that simple.  Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.  If someone attacked me in the night, was a better fighter (judging from Zimmerman's wounds) and I feared for my life, I would end his.  This whole trial is a joke.
 
2013-06-03 02:25:16 PM

missiv: Jack Litman, is the fellow with glasses on, he was the hired gun to find when you absolutely positively did commit the murder. He beat up victims pretty well, back in his day.


The guy with the glasses on is clearly Stephen Colbert from the year 2025.
 
2013-06-03 02:25:49 PM

obamadidcoke: No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Did you not just read the black-and-white law I just farkin' quoted you?

Yes, you can, under some narrow circumstances.  All you have to do is convince the jury of 2 things:

1. That you couldn't retreat, and
2. That you were in reasonable fear of either death or great bodily harm.

It would seem that based upon the eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence, Zimmerman could claim both.

You are correct in that you can't generally start a fight and then claim self-defense, but there are circumstances where you can because the law recognizes that starting a fist-fight with someone doesn't mean you lose your right to self-defense if there are no other options.
 
2013-06-03 02:26:17 PM

dittybopper: Just because you started a fight with someone doesn't mean you have to essentially commit suicide by submitting.


So, I can punch a cop, then, when he pulls his gun, I can legally shoot him dead?
 
2013-06-03 02:26:18 PM

kortex: I don't think Zimmerman had the gun out when he confronted him.  I could be wrong but that's what I remember.


Ah, well, if possible...try to remember what else you saw that night when you were there. It'd be much help to the court case!

Given Zimmerman's account, it is kind of hard to see how he could have possibly shot Martin without the gun already out. He was struck from behind, then Martin was on top of him smashing his head in to the sidewalk. Through all of this...he pulled his weapon and shot Martin in the chest. So, he pulled the gun out, got it between him and Martin, shot him in the chest, and then had Martin fall backwards. That's pretty damn impressive.
 
2013-06-03 02:26:33 PM

kortex: Zimmerman should not  have been following him but that doesn't give Martin the right to attack him.


Martin had a right to "stand his ground", did he not?
 
2013-06-03 02:27:04 PM

PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason."


Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.
 
2013-06-03 02:29:33 PM

obamadidcoke: Not true. If you chase me with a bat I can defend myself with anything from a shotgun to a flame thrower. The law doesn't require proportionality in defense.



The law separates force into two catagories -- lethal and non-lethal.  Only threats of serious bodily injury or death justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.  Non-lethal threats only justify the use of non-lethal force.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman posed a threat of any imminent injury, much less serious injury or death, to Martin prior to the physical contact.  Is it plausible that Zimmerman did so?  Maybe.  Sure.  But the presumption is that he didn't, and there's no evidence to prove he did.

However, once the violence had progressed to the point where Martin was pounding a man's head on the concrete, then the use of lethal force was legal.
 
2013-06-03 02:29:40 PM

Tatsuma: Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.


All he "initiated" was a walk home with a bag of Skittles.  When you stalk someone in the middle of the night while holding a gun (after you've been advised not to by a 911 operator), then you are the one who puts the events in motion.  Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?
 
2013-06-03 02:29:49 PM

obamadidcoke: No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Yes you can. (In certain circumstances, and if a Jury or judge agrees after exploring the facts of the case.)

Let's say you pass the on a sidewalk, and you say "That Bojangles is a big fat asshole, who should DIAF" and I say "Excuse me mutherfarker?" and you say "You heard me, you turd" and push me. So you initiated a conflict.

If I then start beating the shiat our of you, and you try to escape, but I grab you and drag you back and now I'm really farking you up and you think I'm going to kill you, and you manage to get a hold of something pointy and stab me and kill me, that's actually self defense.

Why? Because even though YOU started it, I was not in fear of my life. Even though you started it, if I had killed you, I would have no self defense claim. But YOU would, because you had a reasonable fear that I was going to kill you.

(Of course, a judge and hury have to ve convinced of the specifics.)
 
2013-06-03 02:30:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The defendant has to prove that he was, in fact, on his back. Remember, there are no credible witnesses who can identify that it was him on his back being beaten.


Well, the defense has  this witness.  GZ's account matches very well.

The defense also GZ's has injuries and TM's lack of them.  Also GZ's back was damp from being on the ground.

Somebody was crying for help for 40+ seconds on the 911 call.  GZ says it was him, the witness said it was GZ.  It's difficult to imagine an assailant screaming like that while administering a beat down... very easy to imagine the recipient of the beating screaming for help.
 
2013-06-03 02:30:14 PM

obamadidcoke: dittybopper: ongbok: dittybopper: Darth_Lukecash: Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

Actually, Zimmerman had every right to confront him verbally and ask him what he was doing, just like you or I have that right, or anyone for that matter.  If I see someone I don't know walking around my neighborhood, I've got every right to ask them what they are doing.

And that person has every right to tell me to fark off and just keep walking, and there isn't a goddamn thing I could do about it.

The whole idea that a person has the right to have people avoid them in public is ludicrous on the face of it.

Except he chose not to do that. He choose to follow him until he freaked him out to the point that he feared him enough that he ran. Once somebody is running away from you it is not the time to chase them down and decide to confront them verbally.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter.  As long as Zimmerman didn't through the first punch or use fighting words of some kind when the confrontation happened (and there is zero evidence he did either), he still retains the right to self-defense.

Actually, under almost every state law, even *IF* he did start the fight, so long as he couldn't reasonably escape from it (which he couldn't, being pinned to the ground), and so long as he was in reasonable fear for either his life or of great bodily harm, he could use lethal force to defend himself.  It's actually the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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 ...

No he doesn't. I can't start a fight with you and then when I am loosing I shoot you and claim self defense.


Yes you can. You can't commit a felony and claim self defense - hit a cop, or fire a gun at someone, or even hit them with a weapon - and then shoot them.

You can certainly start a fist fight, lose, shoot them and still claim self defense if they don't stop beating you when you cry uncle.

You might not feel it's morally right, but that is how the law works in Florida.
 
2013-06-03 02:30:46 PM

WelldeadLink: PacificaFitz: I fail to understand what any of this matters.  It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason."

Yeah, getting your head bashed against the sidewalk is no reason to do anything.



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

Martin was exercising his rights.  He was attempting to beat to death a man who was about to shoot him.
 
2013-06-03 02:31:16 PM
Yet another picture of 4 pound, 3 ounce, premature baby Trayvon Martin right before he was gunned down in coldest blood by one Hernando-Jiminez Silversteinfarb.

i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report