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

[WHAMPOM]

Still wouldn't matter one bit as he was still a threat by being on top of zimmerman after beating him senseless as verified fact proven by evidence. Nothing can show this isn't 100 percent self defense when you look at the evidence.

So far there is ZERO evidence zimmerman committed any crime and all evidence proves self defense.

Evidence is your girlyman had very slight injuries from his prolonged viscious beating. What John says he saw seems to be influenced by his addiction to watching MMA programs. Besides who runs away when they hear what seems to be a "child" calling for help?

 

[TerryMathews]

It could still be self defense if he thought GZ was reaching for a gun. You can't just stand up and fight fisticuffs when the other person has a gun, you have to fight until you have control of the gun and no longer have to fear for your life. It's quite obvious TM didn't reach that point in the fight...

There are only two relevant questions in Florida when analyzing self defense? Did the defendant have a legal right to be there and did he have a reasonable fear for his life.

Notice there is no concern paid to the decedents state of mind. His right to self defense is not probative.

 

[TerryMathews]

Evidence is your girlyman had very slight injuries from his prolonged viscious beating. What John says he saw seems to be influenced by his addiction to watching MMA programs. Besides who runs away when they hear what seems to be a "child" calling for help?

Who listens to their boyfriend get murdered on the phone & not call 911 or his parents?

 

[soundforbjt]

No, because mounting someone isn't self defense.

Now if your question were how would I feel if the situations were reversed, then yes I would have no issue with Martin walking away.

If there is evidence that disproves Martin was on top, I'm open to reconsider my position however everything I've seen strongly indicates Martin was on top at the moment he was shot. And then there's Johns testimony...

See bolded. Even if they're trying to kill you with a gun? You'd just let them?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I frankly find questioning whether it was GZ screaming to be absurd on it's face. It's remarkable to me that anyone who is in any measure informed about this case, would do so at this point. Or for many months now.

1. GZ said it was him screaming immediately to neighbors and cops, while he was still stunned and dazed by what had happened, in no condition to formulate masterstrokes of criminal evil.
2. GZ had all the injuries, the injured person with gashes on their head is the one screaming, not the uninjured person who caused those injuries.
3. The person on top is not the one screaming, this is elementary. At least, not screaming like that, in terror. If it was TM screaming it'd be something like "help me hold this guy down! he's got a gun!" not the sort of plaintive wail of terror, which can only correspond to being on bottom, and having the injuries. GZ in both cases.
4. It's quite clearly GZ's voice if you listen to the screams isolated from the rest of the call, enhanced, and have heard GZ speak extensively.
5. The police, whose job this is, didn't question that it was GZ screaming. Even the detective who had misgivings about other aspects of the case.
6. GZ was unguarded and sure enough about this issue that he even casually remarked that it didn't even sound like him. Of course what he meant wasn't that it didn't sound like his voice, what he really meant was he had never heard himself in such durress, and that familiar human feeling of your own voice played back to you sounding odd. That he would be so unguarded about this as to say that, indicates he wasn't trying to maintain some lie about the issue, unless you're prepared to credit him with being an absolute criminal mastermind.

For you to believe it was TM screaming, you are then required to believe that GZ is so unbelievably evil, as to execute someone who had been begging for his life for a minute solid. So sure of his aim that he trusted one bullet to achieve this result... it's just a fucking stupid notion on it's face, that TM was the one screaming.

The only way to even entertain the notion is to fail to consider the implications or think it through in any meaningful way.

Again, you'd have to believe GZ was an absolutely cold-blooded murderer, and a criminal mastermind who thought to lie about whose screams they were instantly. That John's first account of who he saw screaming was wrong, too.

I've not seen really any TM supporter who seems to think GZ was pure evil, most, at least these days, seem to just want to dwell in some vague area dealing with something about losing his temper... shooting when he really didn't have to, it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense, but they typically avoid thinking through the whole scenario in great detail, or talking about certain areas like this which break down logically when examined closely.

So, if you aren't claiming that you think he's pure evil, murdering someone for no good reason, how can you say you think he might've shot someone who had begged for mercy for a full minute?

See, GZ's version doesn't require us to believe there were any super villains or criminal masterminds present that evening. All it requires is for you to believe that a troubled young man, while on suspension from school, lashed out at a perceived authority figure and potential source of yet more trouble... and got caught up in administering a beating. And that the target of this beating feared for his life and acted accordingly. Nothing too crazy there, it all flows and makes sense.

The pro-TM narratives don't hold up to logical scrutiny or pass the sniff test re: human motivations and actions.

Giving your opponents extremely ridiculous views and arguing against them is a known tactic here. Just shows how shakey your own points are. Time to cut out the bullshit.

 

[momeNt]

There are only two relevant questions in Florida when analyzing self defense? Did the defendant have a legal right to be there and did he have a reasonable fear for his life.

Notice there is no concern paid to the decedents state of mind. His right to self defense is not probative.

My post was related to someone saying what if TM lived, so GZ would be the decedent and we wouldn't be analyzing why he reached for the gun (as I'm saying TM would have alleged).

 

[WHAMPOM]

Who listens to their boyfriend get murdered on the phone & not call 911 or his parents?

"Why are you following me?", "What are you doing here?" and "Get off me!" "Get me off me!". "Click!" Do Not Make A Murder. Other people that heard the screams and shot did call. Now take your strawman and stick it up yo'azz.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I mentioned earlier that on the shootings and self defense videos I've watched the man who feared for his life lets out shrill girly almost unhuman screams. It's the very stem of the brain taking over to do anything to not get killed.

You can't reproduce that kind of primal fear or scream.

So you admit it could be Skittles screaming? Not the ultrasonic screams expected from high pitched Zimmerman?

edit: Glad you could manup and bring up contrary evidence.

 

[TerryMathews]

See bolded. Even if they're trying to kill you with a gun? You'd just let them?

There's no evidence of a struggle for the gun so what is your assertion based on that Martin was even aware Zimmermann was armed?

 

[spidey07]

So you admit it could be Skittles screaming? Not the ultrasonic screams expected from high pitched Zimmerman?

edit: Glad you could manup and bring up contrary evidence.

Of course it "could" be. But all evidence and common sense says it was zimmerman. Right now all the evidence proves self defense. MUCH more than the preponderance of evidence (51% chance) to show self defense needed at the immunity hearing. That's why he should have never been arrested.

 

[TerryMathews]

So you admit it could be Skittles screaming? Not the ultrasonic screams expected from high pitched Zimmerman?

edit: Glad you could manup and bring up contrary evidence.

So if there's no conclusive evidence who's scream it is, why do you conclude that it's Martin screaming? Was he screaming while he was sitting on Zimmermann?

What if it was a third party, an as yet undiscovered witness screaming?

 

[TerryMathews]

"Why are you following me?", "What are you doing here?" and "Get off me!" "Get me off me!". "Click!" Do Not Make A Murder. Other people that heard the screams and shot did call. Now take your strawman and stick it up yo'azz.

I love how you disregard johns testimony for his reaction, but don't hold DeeDee to the same standard. Equality, my ass.

 

[momeNt]

There's no evidence of a struggle for the gun so what is your assertion based on that Martin was even aware Zimmermann was armed?

It's called a hypo! The OP of that hypo was changing the facts to make TM being the one who lived.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's called a hypo! The OP of that hypo was changing the facts to make TM being the one who lived.

Ok to create a new scenario/hypo; but the data behind has to remain the same & consistently used.

That is the challenge to meet the evidence with a new scenario that matches the posters hypothesis.

 

[Tom]

There are only two relevant questions in Florida when analyzing self defense? Did the defendant have a legal right to be there and did he have a reasonable fear for his life.

Notice there is no concern paid to the decedents state of mind. His right to self defense is not probative.

That isn't right. A person's actions, not just their location, can affect their right to self-defense. And the actions do not have to be illegal per se.

And depending on which self-defense statute is relevant, it isn't the person's opinion about reasonable fear, its what a reasonable person would think.

And at least one statute mentions meeting force with force, which could be interpreted to mean equal force, not killing someone over a bloody nose.

I'm not a legal expert at all, but there are issues in this case that I don't think can be decided outside of a trial or hearing.

In other words, I think its a matter of judgement, not clear cut.

 

[TerryMathews]

That isn't right. A person's actions, not just their location, can affect their right to self-defense. And the actions do not have to be illegal per se.

And depending on which self-defense statute is relevant, it isn't the person's opinion about reasonable fear, its what a reasonable person would think.

And at least one statute mentions meeting force with force, which could be interpreted to mean equal force, not killing someone over a bloody nose.

I'm not a legal expert at all, but there are issues in this case that I don't think can be decided outside of a trial or hearing.

In other words, I think its a matter of judgement, not clear cut.

If the statute doesn't say equal force, how can you hold him to that standard?

To your other point, the multitude of statutes aren't necessarily relevant either. 776.032 grants assertive immunity, which means if he satisfies the criteria within, the other statutes are rendered mute.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If the statute doesn't say equal force, how can you hold him to that standard?

To your other point, the multitude of statutes aren't necessarily relevant either. 776.032 grants assertive immunity, which means if he satisfies the criteria within, the other statutes are rendered mute.

In both states I've received concealed weapons training and permit/license justified use of force means force up to and including deadly force. I don't see where Florida's Justified Use of Force Statute (776) states anything different.

There's only three statutes that will potentially be applied to this case by the defense: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person, 776.041 Use of force by aggressor, and 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

 

[TerryMathews]

In both states I've received concealed weapons training and permit/license justified use of force means force up to and including deadly force. I don't see where Florida's Justified Use of Force Statute (776) states anything different.

There's only three statutes that will potentially be applied to this case by the defense: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person, 776.041 Use of force by aggressor, and 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

You know that and I know that...

 

[OCNewbie]

Who listens to their boyfriend get murdered on the phone & not call 911 or his parents?

"Why are you following me?", "What are you doing here?" and "Get off me!" "Get me off me!". "Click!" Do Not Make A Murder. Other people that heard the screams and shot did call. Now take your strawman and stick it up yo'azz.

She knew he had been "murdered" the very next day though, but still didn't call. That's what he's saying. She never called the police, his parents, 911, anything.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Jesus people, you're STILL GOING? Give it a rest.

 

[spidey07]

Jesus people, you're STILL GOING? Give it a rest.

I simply will not allow this travesty of justice to continue without providing facts, evidence and the rule of law to protect the victim. JUSTICE! JUSTICE NOW! JUSTICE FOR ZIMMERMAN!

I can't wait till he gets let go on immunity.

 

[Geosurface]

Jesus people, you're STILL GOING? Give it a rest.

Never!

 

[HomerJS]

Haven't been here in months and I know this is a self defeating question but has this thread ever made it off the 1st page???

 

[spidey07]

Haven't been here in months and I know this is a self defeating question but has this thread ever made it off the 1st page???

Don't know.

 

[Tom]

I happened across a page some of you may be interested in.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases