• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SpatiallyAware said:
<snip>

Tell me - what exactly is this broad opinion you think zimmerman formed?
Click to expand...


Scorpi don't ignore my question.


On what basis do you think zimmerman formed his opinion of trayvon? Zimmerman stated it was due to him peering between houses, looking around like he was up to no good. We call it creepin - looking for an opportunity.

You think it was something else. Explain it to us.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Running - legal
Driving slowly - legal

Knocking someone down and beating them over the head - illegal and can get you shot.


I don't know why this is so difficult
Click to expand...

Self defense law is not based on whether the other person is doing something legal or not, it is based on the perception of the actor.

My perception of someone that looks like Zimmerman did that night, leaving their vehicle and running after me after staring at me for several minutes, is very different from someone that's simply jogging while minding their own business.
 
Sc0rp said:
I think that, in that situation where someone leaves a building or vehicle to chase you, it is escalating the situation. I already stated that if someone left a vehicle and ran after me like that, I'd want to know what their deal was and if they make the wrong move, I'll probably shoot them.
Click to expand...

In the case of a homicide, the question is not who is the initial aggressor or who escalated the fight, it is only who escalated it to the level of deadly force.

Zimmerman could have walked up to Trayvon Martin, shoved him a couple of times and bitch-slapped his face until Martin got so pissed he started fighting back. But if Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement before Zimmerman drew a gun, it was justifiable self-defense.

If, however, Zimmerman pulled a gun, and Martin reacted by trying to bash Zimmerman's head-in to prevent Zimmerman from shooting, than Zimmerman was the first to escalate to deadly force and it was murder.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Scorpi don't ignore my question.


On what basis do you think zimmerman formed his opinion of trayvon? Zimmerman stated it was due to him peering between houses, looking around like he was up to no good. We call it creepin - looking for an opportunity.

You think it was something else. Explain it to us.
Click to expand...

I answered your stupid question, you don't like the answer, so now you want to argue semantics.

I know that if someone was staring at ME, I'd start looking around to see if they are actually staring at something else or something.

Look, according to Zimmerman, when he first saw Trayvon, T was walking on the sidewalk and then he kinda looked around while on the sidewalk. He never actually Saw Trayvon near any houses. That's Zimmerman talking, not me. Maybe Trayvon was trying to get his bearings. Maybe he was trying to figure out what Zimmerman was staring at. Maybe he was admiring the scenery. Someone looking around with their EYES is not a crime. We won't ever know because Martin is dead. All we know is that Zimmerman didn't see anything resembling a crime going on, even if he were suspicious of his behavior, it does not warrant getting out of the truck and running into a dark alley after anyone based on what Zimmerman said he saw.
 
Sc0rp said:
My perception of someone that looks like Zimmerman did that night, leaving their vehicle and running after me after staring at me for several minutes, is very different from someone that's simply jogging while minding their own business.
Click to expand...

And your perception of the distinction between those two people has no bearing on self-defense. The question isn't whether the person is a jerk who probably deserves to be punished for something. The question is whether the deceased was the first person to take an action that the killer reasonably believed was likely to inflict serious bodily harm. If the killer was the first to attempt to inflict serious bodily harm or if the killer did not reasonably believe he/she was in danger of suffering serious bodily harm, then it is murder, regardless of whether you think the killer is a racist scumbag that is happy about the outcome.
 
Cozarkian said:
In the case of a homicide, the question is not who is the initial aggressor or who escalated the fight, it is only who escalated it to the level of deadly force.

Zimmerman could have walked up to Trayvon Martin, shoved him a couple of times and bitch-slapped his face until Martin got so pissed he started fighting back. But if Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement before Zimmerman drew a gun, it was justifiable self-defense.

If, however, Zimmerman pulled a gun, and Martin reacted by trying to bash Zimmerman's head-in to prevent Zimmerman from shooting, than Zimmerman was the first to escalate to deadly force and it was murder.
Click to expand...

Actually in florida's statutes regarding justifiable use of force, there is a statute that DOES concern itself with with the initial aggressor and hamstrings their ability to use deadly force if they cause someone else to use force upon them first. Your assessment is incorrect as it is written in the law.

Not just that, but there are cases, in Florida, that support the concept that even a false movement like reaching for a waistband, can be met with DEADLY force.

The law also allows people to intimidate force in self defense without actually being under attack, being threatened or actually seeing a weapon. What matters is do you believe someone will imminently use unlawful force upon you and the extent of what you think that force MIGHT be.

If you want, I can name a couple cases from Florida to illustrate my point.

Your statement that TM would essentially have to stand there and take it if Zimmerman started slapping him around and Zimmerman can just use deadly force as a last resort if he bumps his head is patently false.
 
Last edited:
Cozarkian said:
And your perception of the distinction between those two people has no bearing on self-defense. The question isn't whether the person is a jerk who probably deserves to be punished for something. The question is whether the deceased was the first person to take an action that the killer reasonably believed was likely to inflict serious bodily harm. If the killer was the first to attempt to inflict serious bodily harm or if the killer did not reasonably believe he/she was in danger of suffering serious bodily harm, then it is murder, regardless of whether you think the killer is a racist scumbag that is happy about the outcome.
Click to expand...

Yes my perception does. If I reasonably believe one person will imminently use unlawful force upon me, I can meet force with force. I can even INITIATE force if I simply perceive a threat. Especially in Florida. If I reasonable believe someone to be a deadly threat, I can use deadly force. Reaching for your wasteband can and has been legally viewed as you reaching for a weapon, which is a perceived deadly threat. The law does not say that threats have to be real, only that you believe a threat is present.
 
Last edited:
Cozarkian said:
In the case of a homicide, the question is not who is the initial aggressor or who escalated the fight, it is only who escalated it to the level of deadly force.

Zimmerman could have walked up to Trayvon Martin, shoved him a couple of times and bitch-slapped his face until Martin got so pissed he started fighting back. But if Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement before Zimmerman drew a gun, it was justifiable self-defense.

If, however, Zimmerman pulled a gun, and Martin reacted by trying to bash Zimmerman's head-in to prevent Zimmerman from shooting, than Zimmerman was the first to escalate to deadly force and it was murder.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate in FLorida. If TM had a gun that night he would have been justified in killing GZ. GZ would be dead and TM's story would be the only truth and the state would have to prove that he wasn't acting in self defense.
 
emperus said:
That is not accurate in FLorida. If TM had a gun that night he would have been justified in killing GZ. GZ would be dead and TM's story would be the only truth and the state would have to prove that he wasn't acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

Thankyouthankyouthankyou

It's like everyone is trying to shoot from the hip on what constitutes justifiable use of force in the face of so many cases that say otherwise.

In TM's case, this would be his defense.

'I asked him why he was following me! He reached behind his back! I thought he was going to pull out a weapon!'
 
Last edited:
Sc0rp said:
Your statement that TM would essentially have to stand there and take it if Zimmerman started slapping him around and Zimmerman can just use deadly force as a last resort if he bumps his head is patently false.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he'd have to stand there and take it. He just has to respond with non-deadly force. For example, he could punch Zimmerman and/or throw him to the ground. If that is what happened, and Zimmerman then pulled a gun and shot TM, it was murder. The jury seems to believe there is a reasonable doubt that TM did more than just that.

Admittedly, yes, I did not research Florida law, so you might be correct in claiming when my analysis is wrong, but based on the media coverage of the Stand Your Ground law that I heard, I believe it follows the general rules that I discussed.
 
Sc0rp said:
Yes my perception does. If I reasonably believe one person will imminently use unlawful force upon me, I can meet force with force.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought you were speaking from the stance of a juror, not the stance of a potential victim. In that case, yes, your perception of a person does play into whether you reasonably believe they will use deadly force.
 
Cozarkian said:
My mistake. I thought you were speaking from the stance of a juror, not the stance of a potential victim. In that case, yes, your perception of a person does play into whether you reasonably believe they will use deadly force.
Click to expand...

The jurors are given instructions the make a verdict based on what a reasonable belief would be. If I tell them that I thought he was reaching for a gun and that's why I shot hin, they would have to deliberate on whether my belief was reasonable. Chances are, in this case, they would agree with me especially if I tell them that he reached near the spot where he keeps his gun and I didn't tamper with his weapon.
 
Cozarkian said:
I didn't say he'd have to stand there and take it. He just has to respond with non-deadly force. For example, he could punch Zimmerman and/or throw him to the ground. If that is what happened, and Zimmerman then pulled a gun and shot TM, it was murder. The jury seems to believe there is a reasonable doubt that TM did more than just that.

Admittedly, yes, I did not research Florida law, so you might be correct in claiming when my analysis is wrong, but based on the media coverage of the Stand Your Ground law that I heard, I believe it follows the general rules that I discussed.
Click to expand...

Zimmermans self defense claim is based on his claim that Trayvon was trying to seize his gun to use it on him. Not on that 'headbash' thing. That was a huge distraction. They were about four feet from the pavement when John saw them and when GZ shot and killed TM.

SYG is just a provision that stipulates that you don't have a duty to retreat. The problem is that, without that duty to retreat before using deadly force, it is really really difficult to figure out if someone committed murder or not. That's why the jury split in the Michael Dunn case, whereas in any other state that doesn't have SYG for deadly force, he would have been found guilty of murder based on the evidence and the fact that there were several witnesses that saw what happened and don't support his claim.
 
Last edited:
SpatiallyAware said:
Assertions?? What part of that post was an assertion? These are facts which have been heavily discussed in the trial and the other thread.


The root of the case is that trayvon made the specific choice to double back and viciously assault zimmerman. Even if (he didn't) zimmerman had pointed a gun at or threatened trayvon, he can't then go home, stash his dope, then return to the scene and try to murder him.


All other facts aside (all of which support zimmerman anyway), the biggest point of this case which proves zimmerman's innocence is the fact that trayvon had to have doubled back for them to cross paths again. Trayvon chose to return to the scene. Obviously a poor choice, but it's his row to hoe.
Click to expand...

Was there some dope, or are you just making up facts?
 
Orignal Earl said:
Was there some dope, or are you just making up facts?
Click to expand...

There was no dope, but the defense did try to say that a *buglary tool* was found near one of the houses in the area two weeks after the shooting. Of course, it looks a lot like one of the shingles from the awning of the house it was near and the awning on that house had a missing shingle that may have gotten loose and fell off. But O'Mara tried to make that something sinister connected to Trayvon,

Other than that, nope, no drugs were found.
 
The Court's Order, which I am reading for the first time, is at http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2014-06/274341540-30065331.pdf. I will say that if the court is right about the law (and I have no reason to doubt it is), there is at least a very strong argument in favor of the notion that he is a public figure. While the Order is not a thing of great artistic beauty, it seems legally solid and reasonably thorough. Based on that I would put the likelihood of a successful appeal at less than 50%. We shall see . . .
 
Sc0rp said:
There was no dope, but the defense did try to say that a *buglary tool* was found near one of the houses in the area two weeks after the shooting. Of course, it looks a lot like one of the shingles from the awning of the house it was near and the awning on that house had a missing shingle that may have gotten loose and fell off. But O'Mara tried to make that something sinister connected to Trayvon,

Other than that, nope, no drugs were found.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't think so
Good luck with getting anywhere with Spatially, the dude is so blinded by a fear of thugs coming to get him he won't listen to any reason
 
Sc0rp said:
So one of them is Jared Taylor and the other is Eric Cartman? Lol
Click to expand...

Ya, Eric works for spidey, especially in the Zimmerman episode. Minus the hate for Jews.
Speaking of Jared, I have a buddy who is/was a follower. I know it's retarded to say, but he was a great guy otherwise lol
 
Sc0rp said:
There was no dope, but the defense did try to say that a *buglary tool* was found near one of the houses in the area two weeks after the shooting. Of course, it looks a lot like one of the shingles from the awning of the house it was near and the awning on that house had a missing shingle that may have gotten loose and fell off. But O'Mara tried to make that something sinister connected to Trayvon,

Other than that, nope, no drugs were found.
Click to expand...


The family clearly stated that trayvon made it to they porch that night in the first few weeks of drivel about how good of a kid he was.

No dope was found at the scene, but trayvon had drugs in his system and was a known drug dealer - complete with people contacting him "looking for plant". He also has pictures of him sizzurping on a purple drank. He also tried to get some hoodlums outside the gas station to buy him blunt wraps.

Trayvon was found with burglary tools at school, along with thousands of dollars in "gold and diamond" jewelry including watches.



You would know all of this if you got your info from the actual records involved with trayvon rather than off some liberalie news site.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top