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

[EagleKeeper]

Here is the real point about Zimmerman testifying.

There will be a story presented that whatever confrontation took place, Martin was defending himself. There's a good deal of evidence to support this, and no evidence that disproves it. Zimmerman's injuries, who was on top, none of that disproves or even minimizes the likelihood that this is the right story.

Where is the evidence that Martin was defending himself?

You have witnesses hearing a verbal altercation.
There are no witnesses seeing a shoving match.
You have witnesses seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman.
No offensive marks on Zimmerman
No defensive marks on Martin?

Where is the defending Martin coming from?

 

[spidey07]

The little boy was scared of the big hulking white guy who hunted him down for his skittles and tea. The child was well within his rights to beat the crap out of the hulking white man, mount him, bash his head in, break his nose and then restrain him to continue the beating while the racist white man was screaming for his life! What's wrong with you people!!! That's totally legal and warranted!

He didn't have to kill this child, just sit there and take his beating like the racist white man he is. He deserved the beating and should have just taken it. Why didn't he stay in his car like a good white man is supposed to! Why didn't foo recognize that's SLIM! From da streets! YO! He didn reconize so he deserfed da beatin

 

[TerryMathews]

Here is the real point about Zimmerman testifying.

There will be a story presented that whatever confrontation took place, Martin was defending himself. There's a good deal of evidence to support this, and no evidence that disproves it. Zimmerman's injuries, who was on top, none of that disproves or even minimizes the likelihood that this is the right story.

Without Zimmerman's testimony, there's no good way to get his story before the jury. With his testimony, his story can be fully developed, but his credibility will be crucial.

The jury or judge will most likely pick one or the other of these stories and if they favor Martin's version as presented by the prosecution, Zimmerman's only chance will be how confident they are in that judgement.

That has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or the 5th Amendment, but its possible he won't win if he doesn't testify.

No evidence shows that Martin was defending himself, as there is no evidence that Martin was assaulted prior to being shot.

Martins self defense rights do not help prove Zimmermanns guilt. The law allows for the possibility that both men had a right to self defense, but only the survivors right is relevant.

And yes, that does mean the law recognizes "to the victor goes the spoils". The law is an unsympathetic bitch only finds guilt. Not justice, and not vengeance.

 

[Tom]

Where is the evidence that Martin was defending himself?

You have witnesses hearing a verbal altercation.
There are no witnesses seeing a shoving match.
You have witnesses see Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Where is the defending Martin coming from?

All of the actual evidence about Martin and Zimmerman's activities and state of mind prior to whatever confrontation/altercation occurred.

It all points to Zimmerman being the aggressor, and making mistakes in judgement about his own activities and about who Martin was and why he was there.

Its a perfectly logical conclusion that Zimmerman confronted or threatened Martin in some way, and therefore its logical that Martin would defend himself.

Even if during the altercation, at some point Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries and was on top of him, those things are consistent with Martin defending himself.

Of course, its pointless to keep repeating this to someone who for whatever reason wants it to be ok that Zimmerman shot Martin, and won't consider the facts that aren't helpful to Zimmerman.

Just to be clear, Zimmerman's injuries and the eyewitnesses could also be judged to be consistent with Zimmerman's story, and if he testifies and is found credible then he could win acquittal.

Or even if a jury or judge thinks Martin might have been defending himself, they have to think that beyond a reasonable doubt. I acknowledge that too, although I don't think that's out of the question.

 

[Tom]

No evidence shows that Martin was defending himself, as there is no evidence that Martin was assaulted prior to being shot.

Martins self defense rights do not help prove Zimmermanns guilt. The law allows for the possibility that both men had a right to self defense, but only the survivors right is relevant.

And yes, that does mean the law recognizes "to the victor goes the spoils". The law is an unsympathetic bitch only finds guilt. Not justice, and not vengeance.

I'd like some documentation for this legal principle ?

and how it applies in a fight between an unarmed person and an armed person.

 

[Tom]

Even in your what if, the witness who saw martin on top seconds before the shot restraining and beating zimmerman = automatic self defense.

That's what matters in this case and can destroy all the team skittles what if's. There's a witness that actually PROVES it was self defense regardless if martin was defending himself.

The state has to DISPROVE self defense. So far all the evidence actually PROVES self defense beyond any doubt.

You are NOT allowed to mount somebody and beat them as they scream for their life. That is ILLEGAL. That can get you lawfully shot.

No eyewitness claims to have seen what you just said happened. None.

You also cannot possibly be right that its automatically the case than an unarmed person can be killed because he's trying to keep an armed person from killing him by holding him on the ground.

I don't know who told you that but its preposterous nonsense.

I'm not saying what happened here couldn't be self-defense on Zimmerman's part, but it isn't some automatic win the way you say it is.

 

[spidey07]

Actually it is automatic, this scenario was described in my CCDW class where the sherrif and AG said "if you're on the ground and your attacker is over you still a threat you are automatically in fear for your life according to law and can shoot".

From a legal perspective on back, mounted, after being beaten or still in process of being beaten the law says you are fully justified in shooting. There is a witness who's account of events destroy any legal hurdles needed to make this not self defense. All the evidence actually PROVES self defense with nothing disputing it.

I get it, you don't think zimmerman had a legal right to shoot. But the law has been explained 1000s of times showing that absolutely he can shoot in self defense in the position he was in verified by eye witness and physical evidence.

 

[TerryMathews]

No eyewitness claims to have seen what you just said happened. None.

You also cannot possibly be right that its automatically the case than an unarmed person can be killed because he's trying to keep an armed person from killing him by holding him on the ground.

I don't know who told you that but its preposterous nonsense.

I'm not saying what happened here couldn't be self-defense on Zimmerman's part, but it isn't some automatic win the way you say it is.

Your argument falls apart that "someone trying to kill him" would have committed another crime: brandishing, assault, unlawful restraint.

There is no evidence of that here. Your straw man falls apart.

 

[Tom]

Actually it is automatic, this scenario was described in my CCDW class where the sherrif and AG said "if you're on the ground and your attacker is over you still a threat you are automatically in fear for your life according to law and can shoot".

I'm sure the sheriff was assuming a scenario vastly different than what possibly occurred in the Zimmerman case.

 

[Tom]

Your argument falls apart that "someone trying to kill him" would have committed another crime: brandishing, assault, unlawful restraint.

There is no evidence of that here. Your straw man falls apart.

There is evidence here. Zimmerman shot Martin. If it wasn't self-defense it was pretty clearly a crime.


Besides that, what you quoted from me wasn't about this case.

 

[Binarycow]

My God, people, you all are still going at this?
Must be a bunch of 47 percenters with all the free time in the world.

 

[TerryMathews]

There is evidence here. Zimmerman shot Martin. If it wasn't self-defense it was pretty clearly a crime.


Besides that, what you quoted from me wasn't about this case.

There is no evidence that Zimmermann was "trying" to kill Martin and based on witnesses testimony we can infer that Martin wasn't aware of this murderous intent either. Not one witness reported seeing the gun prior to the shot.

Your deflection makes no sense either. You were clearly commenting on this case. Your second paragraph specifically. Do you need me to have the court reporter read it back to you?

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm sure the sheriff was assuming a scenario vastly different than what possibly occurred in the Zimmerman case.

Do you not see that straddling someone while attacking is a brazenly aggressive move?

 

[Tom]

There is no evidence that Zimmermann was "trying" to kill Martin and based on witnesses testimony we can infer that Martin wasn't aware of this murderous intent either. Not one witness reported seeing the gun prior to the shot.

Your deflection makes no sense either. You were clearly commenting on this case. Your second paragraph specifically. Do you need me to have the court reporter read it back to you?

Ok, I could have been clearer. In the 2nd paragraph when I said "an unarmed person" I thought it was clear I was refuting the general idea, not this specific case.

Which is why I then said I wasn't saying it applied to this case necessarily.

Back to this case. There is very clear evidence Zimmerman was "trying" to kill Martin..he killed him.

No witness saw the gun ?? No witness saw anything prior to the on the ground event, other than one witness saw a "chase". Eyewitnesses heard things, like arguing, but no one can hear a gun until its fired.

Besides that, if Martin was defending himself, the initial action could have been to avoid being restrained, or verbally threatened with something other than death. To which Martin could have legally responded with non-lethal force. Then at some point the seriousness of his defense could have escalated, obviously at some point he may have needed the maximum slef-defense possible, since he ended up dead.

Its all a matter of considering Martin's point of view, something that will be part of a trial.

 

[Tom]

Do you not see that straddling someone while attacking is a brazenly aggressive move?

Can't you see that holding someone on the ground so they can't shoot you is self-defense ?

 

[TerryMathews]

Can't you see that holding someone on the ground so they can't shoot you is self-defense ?

If you want that to be the prosecutions theory, they will have to prove Martin was aware of the danger. As far as I know there is no proof of it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

All of the actual evidence about Martin and Zimmerman's activities and state of mind prior to whatever confrontation/altercation occurred.

It all points to Zimmerman being the aggressor, and making mistakes in judgement about his own activities and about who Martin was and why he was there.

Its a perfectly logical conclusion that Zimmerman confronted or threatened Martin in some way, and therefore its logical that Martin would defend himself.

Even if during the altercation, at some point Martin caused Zimmerman's injuries and was on top of him, those things are consistent with Martin defending himself.

Of course, its pointless to keep repeating this to someone who for whatever reason wants it to be ok that Zimmerman shot Martin, and won't consider the facts that aren't helpful to Zimmerman.

Just to be clear, Zimmerman's injuries and the eyewitnesses could also be judged to be consistent with Zimmerman's story, and if he testifies and is found credible then he could win acquittal.

Or even if a jury or judge thinks Martin might have been defending himself, they have to think that beyond a reasonable doubt. I acknowledge that too, although I don't think that's out of the question.

Defending is a physical action of some type.

Martin departed from the original scene - that kills that timeline for any type of defense around the vehicle

the next interaction was when Martin confronted Zimmerman (both by Zimmerman words and DeeDee statements on what she thought she heard)

Based on both accounts; Martin initiated the confrontation - that puts him initially as the aggressor and Zimmerman on defense.

Again; where is the evidence that the tables turned prior to the shot.

DeeDee did not indicate that the tables turned
Zimmerman did not indicate such
There are no witnesses that indicated such.

Its a perfectly logical conclusion that Zimmerman confronted or threatened Martin in some way, and therefore its logical that Martin would defend himself.

And it is a perfectly logical conclusion that Martin realizing that he had an advantage over Zimmerman; sailed into Zimmerman to administer a whupping of this guy that dared challenge him.


The only difference between our two scenarios is that Zimmerman had blood and other injuries on him; Martin did not.

The logical conclusion is that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman the defender.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Can't you see that holding someone on the ground so they can't shoot you is self-defense ?

IF it is known that there was a weapon.

There has been no evidence presented that such was known in advance.

 

[Tom]

Defending is a physical action of some type.

Martin departed from the original scene - that kills that timeline for any type of defense around the vehicle

the next interaction was when Martin confronted Zimmerman (both by Zimmerman words and DeeDee statements on what she thought she heard)

Based on both accounts; Martin initiated the confrontation - that puts him initially as the aggressor and Zimmerman on defense.

Again; where is the evidence that the tables turned prior to the shot.

DeeDee did not indicate that the tables turned
Zimmerman did not indicate such
There are no witnesses that indicated such.



And it is a perfectly logical conclusion that Martin realizing that he had an advantage over Zimmerman; sailed into Zimmerman to administer a whupping of this guy that dared challenge him.


The only difference between our two scenarios is that Zimmerman had blood and other injuries on him; Martin did not.

The logical conclusion is that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman the defender.

Its a conclusion, its not "the" conclusion.

What is it with you guys that insist there's only one possibility, when clearly that's not the case ?

Martin departed the scene..what scene ?

I don't care what Zimmerman says, that isn't evidence of anything until his credibility is decided. Or DeeDee's for that matter.

Look at the actual evidence, and dispute what I said as a possibility. But by relying on Zimmerman you aren't accomplishing anything.

That's not objective, deciding that Zimmerman's account is true.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Its a conclusion, its not "the" conclusion.

What is it with you guys that insist there's only one possibility, when clearly that's not the case ?

Martin departed the scene..what scene ?

I don't care what Zimmerman says, that isn't evidence of anything until his credibility is decided. Or DeeDee's for that matter.

Look at the actual evidence, and dispute what I said as a possibility. But by relying on Zimmerman you aren't accomplishing anything.

That's not objective, deciding that Zimmerman's account is true.

Even if the prosecution could prove that GZ was the aggressor based on the fact that TM had GZ pinned on his back and possibly still striking him. Witnesses also have stated that GZ was struggling to get free. At that point he could reasonably fear he was in imminent danger and exercise his right to self defense.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.041

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.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Do you not see that straddling someone while attacking is a brazenly aggressive move?

That is quite an exaggeration of John's testimony of " white shirt on red sweater". Sure you are not just parroting Zimmerbots putting a "SHINE" on what they want to think a witness said?

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Without Zimmerman's testimony, there's no good way to get his story before the jury. With his testimony, his story can be fully developed, but his credibility will be crucial.

If it goes to full trial MoM will have two shots at getting Z's story out: his opening and closing remarks before the jury. And frankly, I expect MoM to be much more eloquent than GZ.

I would guess that MoM and his team will monitor the proceedings (the PA's presentation and strength of case, jury reaction etc.) to get a feel for whether or not GZ should take the stand.

Fern

 

[Geosurface]

Zimmerman shooting Trayvon is not evidence he intended to kill him nor is the fact that Trayvon died.

These only indicate that GZ chose to fire his weapon. In a situation of extreme duress and things moving at lightning speed, when the primal brain had taken over. At that point you don't have the faculty or clarity to think things like "I hereby decide to kill this person" it's a much more instinctual thing. It's a reflex to preserve your own life.

 

[peonyu]

This is just one of the FEW racist white on minority crimes that go reported - do not believe that that is not the case ! The KKK is still out there killing innocent skittles carrying black children.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Even if the prosecution could prove that GZ was the aggressor based on the fact that TM had GZ pinned on his back and possibly still striking him. Witnesses also have stated that GZ was struggling to get free. At that point he could reasonably fear he was in imminent danger and exercise his right to self defense.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.041

OR since John recanted seeing the MMA blows, Martin being held by Zimmerman, trying to break out of the restraint.

Edit: witnesses?? John is independent, Deedee a friend, Zimmerman his own, none of which we can take as gold until they take the stand and undergo cross-examination.