Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[Tom]

Only if you believe Rachel (DeeDee) story and not GZ statements where he said the following happened:

TM: Do you have a problem?

GZ: No

TM: Well, you do now.

Then the punch to the nose.

What DD said she heard, before the headphones came off, could have been followed by this, they don't contradict each other.

And I don't believe anyone established WHEN she heard the "get off" part, it could have been several seconds after the headphones came off.

I actually think for all the hysteria about DD's testimony, basically her relevant testimony still stands because its supported by hard facts, like phone records, isn't directly contradicted by anyone excpet possibly Zimmerman, and isn't as important as to the actual details as it is in providing a narrative for Martin's pov.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What DD said she heard, before the headphones came off, could have been followed by this, they don't contradict each other.

And I don't believe anyone established WHEN she heard the "get off" part, it could have been several seconds after the headphones came off.

I actually think for all the hysteria about DD's testimony, basically her relevant testimony still stands because its supported by hard facts, like phone records, isn't directly contradicted by anyone excpet possibly Zimmerman, and isn't as important as to the actual details as it is in providing a narrative for Martin's pov.

The state has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, all the have is a story that's backed with conjecture and innuendo. All the witnesses to date have done more to corroborate GZ's statements than have helped the state prove their case.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Has anyone noticed that Rachel's voice is much deeper that the DeeDee (Rachel) recording by Crump. Doesn't sound anything alike.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wGeK3XHJ7l0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iepkwi4nt_E

 

[Tom]

Defending one's self does not include taking the altercation to the level of aggravated assault and battery. At the time GZ used force there's no doubt it had reached that level and he was then the victim of aggravated assault and battery (which is a forcible felony).





Florida Standard Jury instruction 3.6(f) Justified use of deadly force

Its ok to kill someone in self-defense, but not beat them up or attempt to knock them out ?

That can't be right. You're basically saying self-defense has to result in death or its illegal.

 

[Tom]

Funny thing about this case. If Trayvon had been an adult with a gun, he could have shot and killed Zimmerman at some point after Zimmerman got out of his truck, and there would be overwhelming evidence to support it was self-defense.

But because Trayvon was an unarmed juvenile who wasn't strong enough to kill Zimmerman, Zimmerman is free to kill Trayvon ?

Strange justice.

 

[HumblePie]

except at the actual time of the shooting they were on wet grass, not concrete, which means the threat of Martin pounding his head in the concrete no longer existed.

As to provocation, if Martin perceived a creep following him for no apparent reason, that's most likely sufficient provocation to defend himself. From a legal perspective the issue isn't what Zimmerman was actually doing, its what a reasonable person would think about a stranger looking them over, then pursuing them on a dark rainy night.

Following does NOT meet the legal right to self defense for TM. Not in any state. Unless TM knew previously who GZ was, and had reason to believe GZ would seek to harm him because he knew that GZ had a violent nature (this is just a rhetorical scenario) THEN TM would have legal right to defend himself by striking GZ first.

Since GZ doesn't have a violent nature, and TM did not know GZ previously even if he did then TM has zero right to strike first in self defense when their paths cross. Being followed does NOT give you the right to physically attack the person that follows you that you do not know the person or their intentions. That is the law.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet you can't prove anything you've posted in here. Ask the family of the soccer referee if a single punch from a 17 year old male can cause the death of an adult.

 

[HumblePie]

Funny thing about this case. If Trayvon had been an adult with a gun, he could have shot and killed Zimmerman at some point after Zimmerman got out of his truck, and there would be overwhelming evidence to support it was self-defense.

But because Trayvon was an unarmed juvenile who wasn't strong enough to kill Zimmerman, Zimmerman is free to kill Trayvon ?

Strange justice.

No there would not. You do not know the laws. This is not a correct statement at all.

 

[Tom]

Following does NOT meet the legal right to self defense for TM. Not in any state. Unless TM knew previously who GZ was, and had reason to believe GZ would seek to harm him because he knew that GZ had a violent nature (this is just a rhetorical scenario) THEN TM would have legal right to defend himself by striking GZ first.

Since GZ doesn't have a violent nature, and TM did not know GZ previously even if he did then TM has zero right to strike first in self defense when their paths cross. Being followed does NOT give you the right to physically attack the person that follows you that you do not know the person or their intentions. That is the law.

So its illegal to defend oneself from a stranger ?

 

[boochi]

Tom is just upset that he never got a chance to perform fellatio on Trayvon.

 

[Tom]

No there would not. You do not know the laws. This is not a correct statement at all.

Yes there would be. I do to some extent. And it is a correct statement.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes there would be. I do to some extent. And it is a correct statement.

No it is not.

For TM to shoot GZ when GZ exits his vehicle and claim self defense, TM would have to prove he had reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death from GZ. Which means GZ would have to present a credible threat. Following or leaving a vehicle does NOT meet the legal standard for that at all.

Now if TM previously knew GZ, knew that he carried a gun, knew GZ was violent, and knew GZ may seek to harm him with a gun for a previous association between them then YES he would be justified. Because that, what I listed in the previous sentence, would meet the legal standard for reasonable fear.

Again, you CAN NOT shoot or bring physical violence upon a stranger just because they are following you. It does NOT work that way. This is why you are incorrect and do not know the law.

 

[HumblePie]

So its illegal to defend oneself from a stranger ?

Yes, if you can not prove the stranger had reasonable intent to harm you. I can't even believe you asked this question.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The evidence supports the theory they both waited until they were out of site of the other; in Zimmerman's case to get out of the car and follow Martin; in Martin's case to see if Zimmerman would follow him.

Your theory Martin hid to wait for Zimmerman to spring on him doesn't make any sense. How would he know Zimmerman was going to follow him ?

And if Zimmerman did follow him, how is that Martin's fault ?

From Martin's pov, some creep gives him the once over while sititng in his truck, then gets out and follows him, how does Martin defending himself, however he sees fit, make him a bad guy ? According to FL syg law he had a right to defend himself, even kill Zimmerman if his life was threatened; which obviously it was since he ended up dead.

Stretching to justify Martin's actions

Martin did not know he was going to be followed.
According to W8; he kept going south from the T. This is why Zimmerman lost sight of Martin while in the truck; Martin turned the corner.

Now Martin is safe along the southern leg of the T
Zimmerman shows up coming along the western leg of the T.
Martin is either out of view or moves out of view. Zimmerman is still on the phone at this point and makes no indication that he has re-initiated sight of Martin.

Does Martin then have the right to attack Zimmerman? Zimmerman is not acting as a threat to Martin; he does not even know where Martin is.
Questionable but given circumstances he has the right to confront.

Realize that Martin never indicated that he felt threatened to anyone.
HE had multiple opportunities to do so.

It is possible the Zimmerman may have physically triggered a reaction from Martin or Martin had already made up his mind to dish it out.

The point where self defense breaks down is when your opponent is no longer able to be a threat and has conceded the battle.

Zimmerman had done so and Martin still kept on coming onto him.
There were no other indications of self defense needed by Martin (marks/bruising/torn clothing, etc.) So up to the point of the shoot; Martin has indications of requiring self defense.


Now Zimmerman has the full right of self defense by lethal force and Martin has no indications that Zimmerman is a threat..

The TM team wants to use the fact that Martin ended up dead as a justification for the beating.
The beating was prior to the shot not after the shot

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes there would be. I do to some extent. And it is a correct statement.

You have no clue as to what constitutes provocation. Following or having a verbal confrontation does not meet the legal standard for provocation, it takes physical action to become provocation. So unless you can prove that GZ attempted to strike or detain TM then TM had no grounds to defend himself with force.

 

[Tom]

Yet you can't prove anything you've posted in here. Ask the family of the soccer referee if a single punch from a 17 year old male can cause the death of an adult.

I agree that a medical expert would testify that at times Zimmerman's life could have been in actual danger, and the standard required isn't even that high, meaning it would be fear that something could happen not that it actually could happen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So its illegal to defend oneself from a stranger ?

Funny thing about this case. If Trayvon had been an adult with a gun, he could have shot and killed Zimmerman at some point after Zimmerman got out of his truck, and there would be overwhelming evidence to support it was self-defense.

But because Trayvon was an unarmed juvenile who wasn't strong enough to kill Zimmerman, Zimmerman is free to kill Trayvon ?

Strange justice.

Not if the stranger is NOT a threat.

Zimmerman was not a threat to Martin.
Martin never indicated that he was considered a threat in words and/or actions

Because someone is creepy does not mean you have the right to exterminate them at will.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I agree that a medical expert would testify that at times Zimmerman's life could have been in actual danger, and the standard required isn't even that high, meaning it would be fear that something could happen not that it actually could happen.

And there you go, at the time GZ used deadly force it was reasonable for him to believe he was in grave danger. End of case.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Yes there would be. I do to some extent. And it is a correct statement.

I know the laws pretty well, and no, it's not. You left some major factors out, which ARE present in the Zimmerman case.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Its ok to kill someone in self-defense, but not beat them up or attempt to knock them out ?

That can't be right. You're basically saying self-defense has to result in death or its illegal.

One is protected

However, self defense needs by Martin has yet to be demonstrated by the TM team.

 

[Darkman]

CNN - Anderson Cooper

Exclusive: Martin’s stepmother says ‘I exist’

June 28th, 2013
10:13 PM ET

In an AC360° exclusive, Alicia Stanley speaks out about her role in Trayvon Martin’s life, what her stepson was like, and what she thinks happened the night he was shot and killed.

Part two of the interview:


http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/exclusive-martins-stepmother-says-i-exist

(VIDEOs)

 

[mizzou]

can't wait for the civil trial!

 

[BUTCH1]

No it is not.

For TM to shoot GZ when GZ exits his vehicle and claim self defense, TM would have to prove he had reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death from GZ. Which means GZ would have to present a credible threat. Following or leaving a vehicle does NOT meet the legal standard for that at all.

Now if TM previously knew GZ, knew that he carried a gun, knew GZ was violent, and knew GZ may seek to harm him with a gun for a previous association between them then YES he would be justified. Because that, what I listed in the previous sentence, would meet the legal standard for reasonable fear.

Again, you CAN NOT shoot or bring physical violence upon a stranger just because they are following you. It does NOT work that way. This is why you are incorrect and do not know the law.

True, simply following someone is not entitlement for a physical attack, but in this situation it could be assumed the person being followed might be in fear. It's a dark, rainy night, the person stays behind you with his vehicle, you think he possibly might be a nutjob so you take off and flee, he exits vehicle to try and determine where you've fled to. It's a tough call to determine if TM's attack was based off of fear or anger, IMHO it was fear, if it was anger he probably have walked over to GZ's car as it crawled along and started shit right then and there.

 

[mizzou]

CNN - Anderson Cooper

Exclusive: Martin’s stepmother says ‘I exist’

June 28th, 2013
10:13 PM ET

In an AC360° exclusive, Alicia Stanley speaks out about her role in Trayvon Martin’s life, what her stepson was like, and what she thinks happened the night he was shot and killed.

Part two of the interview:


http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/exclusive-martins-stepmother-says-i-exist

(VIDEOs)

why even bother because she doesn't now anything about what happened....fuck i hate our news!

 

[Tom]

You have no clue as to what constitutes provocation. Following or having a verbal confrontation does not meet the legal standard for provocation, it takes physical action to become provocation. So unless you can prove that GZ attempted to strike or detain TM then TM had no grounds to defend himself with force.

The Florida syg laws on self-defense do not require a person to wait until someone tries to strike them, detain them, or shoot them, to defend themself.

I do have a clue what constitutes provocation, I assume you do to. It isn't a legal term with a single definition.

A dark and stormy night. A stranger sitting in their truck stares at you. You run away and once they can't see you stop to see if they follow you. They do follow you. You think they might have a gun. They approach you without identifying themselves as law enforcement.

Legally speaking, what else has to happen before you can shoot them ? I think that's sufficient, if you think not, tell me specifically what you have to wait for ?

Practically speaking, in this case an adult Trayvon who shot Zimmerman, claims self-defense. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman, who called the adult Trayvon a suspicious punk, expressed anger about them always getting away, then gets out of his truck, armed, and follows Trayvon, isn't a threat to him, or it was unreasonable for Trayvon to see him as a threat.

You think the prosecution could win that case ?