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

[Geosurface]

Agreed, OCNewbie.

Tom's whole notion that of course he'd draw his gun if he was going after a criminal is based on the unproven, non-factual notion that GZ went after him at all, in the sense of trying to close the distance.

Yes, he did try to re-position himself to where he could acquire a visual on Trayvon again, this is a very different thing than attempting to catch up to someone to have a direct interaction/confrontation with them. Worlds of difference.

 

[lotus503]

Agreed, OCNewbie.

Tom's whole notion that of course he'd draw his gun if he was going after a criminal is based on the unproven, non-factual notion that GZ went after him at all, in the sense of trying to close the distance.

Yes, he did try to re-position himself to where he could acquire a visual on Trayvon again, this is a very different thing than attempting to catch up to someone to have a direct interaction/confrontation with them. Worlds of difference.

That would make more sense if the body didn't end up 30+ feet from where Zimmerman claims he was knocked to the ground.

 

[spidey07]

That would make more sense if the body didn't end up 30+ feet from where Zimmerman claims he was knocked to the ground.

None of that matters.

When on back after being brutally beaten, unable to retreat, screaming for your life = lawful self defense.

There can be no other outcome according to law,facts and evidence.

 

[lotus503]

None of that matters to spidey

When on back after being brutally beaten, unable to retreat, screaming for your life = lawful self defense.

There can be no other outcome according to law,facts and evidence.

Fixed it for you

 

[spidey07]

Fixed it for you

No. The law has been explained to you countless times.

Unless you can show Zimmerman committed a forcible felony then this is presumed self defense based on fact and evidence.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence it wasn't self defense.

To this day none has been presented.

 

[OCNewbie]

That would make more sense if the body didn't end up 30+ feet from where Zimmerman claims he was knocked to the ground.

I think there are too many possible explanations for that to conclude, without any other corroborating evidence, that GZ ran after TM, after getting knocked to the ground by TM's first punch, which is what I believe you think happened. That's ONE possible explanation, but that's not the only explanation.

 

[lotus503]

No. The law has been explained to you countless times.

Unless you can show Zimmerman committed a forcible felony then this is presumed self defense based on fact and evidence.

I'm still waiting for a single shred of evidence it wasn't self defense.

To this day none has been presented.

Why Do I need to show this? I am not the state. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests it wast simple defense as you seem to believe, the issue is I don't think it meets a reasonable doubt standard.

But to claim details of what occurred simply don't matter is foolish it just doesn't matter to you.

 

[lotus503]

I think there are too many possible explanations for that to conclude, without any other corroborating evidence, that GZ ran after TM, after getting knocked to the ground by TM's first punch, which is what I believe you think happened. That's ONE possible explanation, but that's not the only explanation.

Oh I agree its not the only plausible explanation and is not proof in itself of murder. Its just one more thing that doesn't add up given zimmerman's version of events.

 

[spidey07]

Why Do I need to show this? I am not the state. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests it wast simple defense as you seem to believe, the issue is I don't think it meets a reasonable doubt standard.

But to claim details of what occurred simply don't matter is foolish it just doesn't matter to you.

The state must prove it wasn't self defense.

So far not a single piece of evidence shows it wasn't self defense according to law.

In fact. All evidence actually proves self defense.

 

[lotus503]

The state must prove it wasn't self defense.

So far not a single piece of evidence shows it wasn't self defense according to law.

In fact. All evidence actually proves self defense.

See I agree with the first two sentences, I do not agree with the third.

There is evidence that calls self defense into question just not enough of it to convict based on reasonable doubt.

You are not interested in what occurred you are interested in squashing anything that doesn't fit your innocence narrative. that's why anything that challenges it at all you harp endlessly on and repeat the meme.

I don't think he will be or should be found guilty base don evidence we know. I also think Zimmerman is a lying piece of shit and think there is a chance he killed him.

I would prefer all of the evidence actually backing up his defense claims. But stupid things like him lying outright about things, distance of the body etc do not support his version. Not enough to convict, definitely enough to investigate and call into question what occurred.

 

[spidey07]

What you fail to understand is he never should have been charged.

That's why these laws were voted in. To stop your mob justice.

They are in place to protect the victim Zimmerman.

 

[lotus503]

What you fail to understand is he never should have been charged.

That's why these laws were voted in. To stop your mob justice.

They are in place to protect the victim Zimmerman.

Problem is you have been saying he shouldn't have been charged this entire time. Id tend to agree at this point but back before we knew the evidence the state had I didn't agree.

See the difference, I wait to see what evidence is released, you state there is no evidence before its released. The fact you are lucky to be a clock in this case does not take away from the fact its taken months to get a good look at what the state had or in this case doesn't have.

In addition you were demonizing Martin and his family long before we knew what evidence existed.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Get out of murder free card you mean Spidey. SYG was designed to protect abused women not gun toteing neighborhood watch vigilantes. All it really does is discourage investigations in questionable shootings.

 

[Geosurface]

Yea, since GZ isn't an abused woman but just a big meanie and a man, I don't think he should have the legal right to defend his life.

He should have to lay there indefinitely and let Trayvon do whatever he feels like doing to him. Up to and including murder him with his fists, the cement, or his own gun.

After all, he got out of his car.

That made Trayvon feel disrespected, so GZ just needed to take his medicine.

Trayvon had every right to assault GZ, and beat him to death or grab his own gun and shoot him with it, because he got out of his car.

 

[TerryMathews]

Problem is you have been saying he shouldn't have been charged this entire time. Id tend to agree at this point but back before we knew the evidence the state had I didn't agree.

See the difference, I wait to see what evidence is released, you state there is no evidence before its released. The fact you are lucky to be a clock in this case does not take away from the fact its taken months to get a good look at what the state had or in this case doesn't have.

In addition you were demonizing Martin and his family long before we knew what evidence existed.

Lotus you and I agree a lot but you don't make sense here. In effect, you're saying to spidey: you've been saying this the whole time, and it turned out you were right but you could have been wrong.


Spidey is a grown man (presumably). Let him worry about the fallout if he is wrong.

I do agree that the affidavit, as presented, had some inconsistencies that had the veracity been able to be challenged before execution possibly would have resulted in no arrest. This is really the counterpoint to the recusal order: both were considered at face value.

The question is did AC break ethics in filing? I doubt we will ever find out: lawyers generally don't pursue each other like that out of professional courtesy. Personally, I do think it was questionable barring other evidence but I'm not 100% either way.

I would like to know why she didn't go to grand jury. I suspect I know the answer however.

 

[lotus503]

Lotus you and I agree a lot but you don't make sense here. In effect, you're saying to spidey: you've been saying this the whole time, and it turned out you were right but you could have been wrong.


Spidey is a grown man (presumably). Let him worry about the fallout if he is wrong.

I do agree that the affidavit, as presented, had some inconsistencies that had the veracity been able to be challenged before execution possibly would have resulted in no arrest. This is really the counterpoint to the recusal order: both were considered at face value.

The question is did AC break ethics in filing? I doubt we will ever find out: lawyers generally don't pursue each other like that out of professional courtesy. Personally, I do think it was questionable barring other evidence but I'm not 100% either way.

I would like to know why she didn't go to grand jury. I suspect I know the answer however.

My point with Spidey is that he had an agenda day one, and that him being correct on the lack of evidence of reasonable doubt doesn't take away from that fact.

his racial based outbursts, and general douchery are not excused by what we now know is a real lack of solid evidence.

I agree given what we know now the affidavit was weaksauce, but that's now after months of evidence or lack of evidence.

 

[spidey07]

My point with Spidey is that he had an agenda day one, and that him being correct on the lack of evidence of reasonable doubt doesn't take away from that fact.

his racial based outbursts, and general douchery are not excused by what we now know is a real lack of solid evidence.

I agree given what we know now the affidavit was weaksauce, but that's now after months of evidence or lack of evidence.

It is very clear you have no understanding of self defense laws. Florida is about the same as my state. Even after its been explained to you well over a hundred times.

You are wrong. You are being willfully ignorant to state law.

Remember this when you are in my state or Florida. It might save your life.

 

[soundforbjt]

It is very clear you have no understanding of self defense laws. Florida is about the same as my state. Even after its been explained to you well over a hundred times.

You are wrong. You are being willfully ignorant to state law.

Remember this when you are in my state or Florida. It might save your life.

Yes, this great law which gang members and other killers have exploited. As a righty you should be well aware of the old saying about "giving an inch".

 

[soundforbjt]

Agreed, OCNewbie.

Tom's whole notion that of course he'd draw his gun if he was going after a criminal is based on the unproven, non-factual notion that GZ went after him at all, in the sense of trying to close the distance.

Yes, he did try to re-position himself to where he could acquire a visual on Trayvon again, this is a very different thing than attempting to catch up to someone to have a direct interaction/confrontation with them. Worlds of difference.

Except you have no idea what GZ was actually doing or trying to do, you just take his word for it. Glad you never question anybody's word...I've got a great car I'd like to sell you!!

 

[OCNewbie]

Except you have no idea what GZ was actually doing or trying to do, you just take his word for it. Glad you never question anybody's word...I've got a great car I'd like to sell you!!

There is a basis for our assumptions. We're not just manufacturing it out of our opinions of GZ's character.

And we do have an idea. Is it absolute? No, but it's based on GZ's actions in situations that closely mirror this one.

 

[soundforbjt]

There is a basis for our assumptions. We're not just manufacturing it out of our opinions of GZ's character.

And we do have an idea. Is it absolute? No, but it's based on GZ's actions in situations that closely mirror this one.

I don't think he ever left his car in any other situation like this one. And because of that "they always get away".

 

[OCNewbie]

I don't think he ever left his car in any other situation like this one. And because of that "they always get away".

He also expressed in previous situations that he did NOT want to confront the individual himself, and that "they always flee into Calabria Cove" (rough quote) which is out "the back entrance". That's where GZ believed the suspect was headed, just like the previous ones. He got out of his car because TM went south down the T, obscuring GZ's view of him.

So we have another suspect headed towards "the back entrance", which from where GZ was at the time, would all but eliminate a confrontation if that's indeed what this suspect also did. We also have GZ clearly stating about a previous suspect he called the NEN about that he did NOT want to confront them. Nothing different here. It was TM's decision to return to the T, or wait there and hide, that made this situation different than the others.

 

[Tom]

Agreed, OCNewbie.

Tom's whole notion that of course he'd draw his gun if he was going after a criminal is based on the unproven, non-factual notion that GZ went after him at all, in the sense of trying to close the distance.

Yes, he did try to re-position himself to where he could acquire a visual on Trayvon again, this is a very different thing than attempting to catch up to someone to have a direct interaction/confrontation with them. Worlds of difference.

Listen, I'm not saying it happened. I am merely pointing out what is logically possible based on the evidence minus Zimmerman's self-serving description.

Mostly to refute the claims from some that this is a completely clear cut case that should not even be before a judge or jury.

For example, you don't know what Zimmerman did, the idea you present that he didn't pursue Martin, what is that based on ?

I say nothing. You completely ignore the rashness and poor judgement that Zimmerman exhibited that night, I guess because its inconvenient to acknowledge it.

But for anyone who does think he acted rashly and foolishly about some things that night, it isn't a stretch to think he did the same kind of thing in pursuing, confronting, and ultimately killing Martin.

Its at least worth considering, imo.

 

[spidey07]

Listen, I'm not saying it happened. I am merely pointing out what is logically possible based on the evidence minus Zimmerman's self-serving description.

Mostly to refute the claims from some that this is a completely clear cut case that should not even be before a judge or jury.

For example, you don't know what Zimmerman did, the idea you present that he didn't pursue Martin, what is that based on ?

I say nothing. You completely ignore the rashness and poor judgement that Zimmerman exhibited that night, I guess because its inconvenient to acknowledge it.

But for anyone who does think he acted rashly and foolishly about some things that night, it isn't a stretch to think he did the same kind of thing in pursuing, confronting, and ultimately killing Martin.

Its at least worth considering, imo.

As long as you understand that on back after being brutal beaten about his head and unable to retreat Zimmerman was lawfully able to fire in self defense.

These facts are facts. Backed up by evidence.

 

[Tom]

You're arguing a different thing: that Zimmermann brandished his gun. There is no witness to support that assertion. There is no evidence to support that assertion. And Zimmermann isn't charged with it. So it would be a little difficult to argue.

The fact that no one saw the incident prior to Martins assault of Zimmermann doesn't mean the prosecution gets to make it up as they go. There still has to be an evidentiary basis.

What is the basis for your claim of brandishing, beyond wishful thinking?

logic and common sense. And it isn't a "claim", its a proposition.

The prosecuton doesn't need to prove when Zimmerman drew his gun, obviously he drew it at some point because he shot and killed Martin.

Given that fact, which is more logical ?

1. he used the gun to defend himself, by drawing it, while he followed or pursued a "criminal" and when the confrontation occured..

or

2. he waited until he was on his back near death and then decided to defend himself ?

Forget about his statement, which of these alternatives makes sense ?