Says the man with the history of violence who just killed him. lol

Probably none in the history of neighborhood watches. lol

History of violence or not...that is Zimmerman's defense...and it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not happen the way Zimmerman said.

Up to this point in time the only thing that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt is why the police and the prosecution originally would not prosecute...and that is because they did not have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

This is why it's my opinion that you are either trolling or not being 100% truthful about your motivations.

Although you sometimes go yumpy, your posts would indicate that you are a thoughtful guy.

But look at what you just said here.

Point: Americans have the right to own firearms
Counterpoint: The problem is anyone can get a firearm

You know that counterpoint is absolutely false. Every state has reasons for NOT granting a firearms license. Our state for example:

PEOPLE WHO CANNOT GET A GUN PERMIT

The law prohibits issuing a gun permit to illegal aliens, anyone under age 21, and anyone:

1. discharged from custody in the preceding 20 years after a finding of not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect;

2. confined by the probate court to a mental hospital in the 12 months before an application;

3. convicted of a serious juvenile offense;

4. subject to a firearm seizure order issued after notice and a hearing;

5. prohibited by federal law from possessing or shipping firearms because he or she was adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution (except in cases where the Treasury Department grants relief from this disability);

6. under a protective or restraining order for using or threatening to use force and in the case of possession, the person knows of the order and, if the order was issued in-state, was notified and given a hearing opportunity; or

7. convicted of a felony or any of 11 specified misdemeanors.

Disqualifying misdemeanors are:

1. criminally negligent homicide (excluding deaths caused by motor vehicles);

2. third-degree assault;

3. third-degree assault of a blind, elderly, pregnant, or mentally retarded person ;

4. second-degree threatening ;

5. first-degree reckless endangerment;

6. second-degree unlawful restraint;

7. first-degree riot ;

8. second-degree riot ;

9. inciting to riot ;

10. second-degree stalking ; and

11. first offense involving possession of (a) controlled or hallucinogenic substances (other than a narcotic substance or marijuana) or (b) less than four ounces of a cannabis-type substance.


Lastly, you are making absolute judgements about Zimmerman based upon your own prejudices. You may not like him for some reason but the reality is you are portraying him as some sort of chronically enraged person who has committed numerous crimes.

Over the course of his whole life he has had:

1. A speeding ticket

2. A domestic related restraining order which was also granted AGAINST his former fiancee.

3. Some sort of altercation with the police at the bar in 2005 for which everything was dropped in exchange for attending an alcohol education program.

Is the medical examiner an idiot too?

No, it's not absolutely false. I have a friend who has "water on the brain", has had a dozen operations on his brain, and although he's 46 mentally he's only 16. He owns his own house, cuts his own grass, but refuses to clean his room.

Guess how many assault rifles he owns!

If that's not scary enough, his last job twenty years ago was at... The US Post Office!

Exception rather than the rule .. once again .. I believe your prejudicial colors are showing.

Name a scenario and everyone ( especially here ) will say ... "I know a guy "

Come on Richard .. you are smarter than that.

Wow

You calling him at Kid at 17....
He can be tried as an adult.

Since I quoted you, then made the point at 17 the US Army is using Kids, I think you would be smart enough to figure it out.

Troll ON....

I was going to bail on this thread, but I have to ask; WTF are you talking about?

Yeah, this is the second time we've discussed this - I was a Marine myself at age 17. And?

He was a teen. He was not even eighteen yet. This is another thing that bothers me - I have a kid a few years younger. I can't imagine my kid being shot because my kid was wearing a hoodie.

No one was shot for wearing a hoodie. You have this habit of grossly distorting the facts and turning it into an emotional argument, rather than an argument rooted in fact.

For as much time as you spend on GFY, I am always amazed at how you get out of the house enough to gather stories that can used for any topic discussed here.

Today was a bad day for the defense. If the judge allows the 4 exhibits tomorrow i think Zimmerman is done. Btw where do i get a best friend like Zimmerman has lol

Having the police testify that he was credible and they believed him, helped?

This helped?

"Serino also testified that the medical examiner's report supported Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was on top of him when Zimmerman shot him. He said there was no evidence to support a prosecution claim that Zimmerman pressed his gun up to Trayvon's chest. The medical examiner's report supported how and where Zimmerman said he shot the teen, Serino testified."

Florida defines murder in the second degree as:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . .

Florida’s standard jury instruction for murder 2 notes that:

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

Notice step 2. Under Florida law the mere fact that an armed man kills another who is unarmed does not prove a “depraved mind” (Poole v. State, Bellamy v. State, and Light v. State). Typically, the prosecution proves “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” through evidence of a long-standing grievance or some unusually wrongful or aggressive conduct on the part of the attacker.

In this case Zimmerman and Martin did not know each other, so there was no existing grievance. That’s why the prosecution’s narrative claims that Zimmerman “profiled, pursued, and killed” Martin, describing his conduct as that of a racist, “wannabe” cop who ruthlessly pursued the frightened Martin.

~~

In the dozens of Florida cases I have read that address the issue of a “depraved mind” murder, not one defendant described as possessing a “depraved mind” phoned police immediately prior to the killing and kept them informed in real time as the situation developed.

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

~~

Zimmerman as Racist

Racism and a “depraved mind” are well linked in Florida law. In Hooker v. State , for example, Hooker killed a man while “looking for Mexicans to run out of town”. The appellate court said his racially motivated actions “fell squarely within the statutory definition of second degree murder, … evincing a depraved mind.“

This is the real reason why the prosecution and the Martin family either blatantly encouraged or (at minimum) didn’t discourage these now-debunked stories:

NBC falsely doctored the 911 call to make it look like Zimmerman mentioned Martin’s race to the dispatcher unprompted, when in fact the dispatcher asked him.

CNN claimed George said “f**king coon” on the 911 tape, a horrible racial slur. Tom Owen, an audio forensics expert, confirmed Zimmerman’s claim that he said ‘f***king punks’.

At the same time, any facts that didn’t fit the “racist” narrative found little mainstream coverage, including:

• Zimmerman and his wife tutored black (and white) children for free on weekends.
• Zimmerman partnered with an African-American to open a business in 2004.
• When the white son of a local police lieutenant escaped discipline after beating a black man Zimmerman circulated flyers demanding punishment.
• The FBI spent months looking for a racial motivation in this killing, but found no evidence to support such a finding.

In this case ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY

I aint got a dog in this race but her testimony seemed compelling, till I found out all she did was look at the pictures, she never examined Zimmerman.

Once again I have to wonder why the prosecution would do this, You can bet the defense will put on an equally qualified doctor who DID examine Zimmerman, probably with Xrays and all that and that ME is going to look almost as dumb as Rachel Jenteal.

How come none of the gun owners were screaming for her freedom?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1510113.html

EVERYONE should be screaming for her release.

Possibly because she fired a gun at her husband and children? Striking one person and killing him... while having no clue who she was going to hit??

Seems like a pretty obvious problem.

If it only took the jury 12 minutes to find her guilty, then they are the most racist people ever... or the facts that came out in court were pretty compelling.

Here is a life threatening beating...

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u..._4-620x425.jpg

Security guard beat the shit out of him... Just won $58 million in court. Can't speak, can't walk, needs 24 hour attention...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3532849.html

As was explained in court this morning...under the Florida self defense law...Zimmerman would not have to sustained any injuries at all from Martin...to use deadly force...all that is required under the law is if he...as a reasonable person...was in fear for his life or great bodily harm.

So you believe that you should allow yourself to be attacked.... wait, let the other party beat you (presumably hoping he stops just before you are fatally injured), sustain injuries, then in the moment, self diagnose and pause and reflect on the situation to determine whether or not those injuries are life threatening or if you will be killed.... THEN act?

Sounds legit.

Ironically, you use a pic of someone who clearly had cause to pull out a gun and kill his attacker. Thanks.

Zimmerman got punched in the face. Hardly life threatening.

When you are on your back, getting your head banged into the concrete with someone on top of you, punching you and telling you they are going to kill you... when does it become "life threatening"

How many blows does it take to die or be brain damaged for life? 10 more? 5 more? 1 more? Or do you just adopt a "wait and see" attitude?

If your child was on the bottom with someone on top beating on them and pounding his/her head into the concrete you're advice would have surely been "son, you should have just let him do his thing.... its no big deal", i'm sure. :)

You have absolutely no clue how that final 30 seconds went down and are in no position whatsoever to make any determination as to whether or not he was justified in pulling out his pistol and using it.

Your arguments are largely irrational and emotional as people keep telling you.

As I pointed out above...under Florida Law...Zimmerman would not have to sustain any injuries at all...be they life threatening or otherwise...he as a "reasonable person" would only have to be in fear for his life or great bodily harm.

Huge difference between believing your life to be in danger, and sustaining life threatening injuries. As I have said multiple times already, in that moment your biochemical and physiological defence mechanisms kick in, as per evolution, and it's fight or flight. In a nanosecond. It's why you jump like fuck if a 3 year old kid says BOO!! and you genuinely aren't expecting it - your body and brain reacts instantly, until such time as your senses adjust and your brain is told: no threat.

How are people not getting this? Both men were at that specific crucial time in what their body and brain believed to be a life-threatening situation.

Which is pretty ridiculous in some cases if you think about it. If an eight year old girl kicks me in the nuts and then gets ready to do it again am I justified in pulling out my firearm and shooting her in the head for fear of permanent injury and great bodily harm? Where exactly do you draw the line with this?

Worse yet it's very possible that Martin was in fear of his life too when he decided to use force (with his fists rather than a firearm). So how does that work if both people involved were in fear of their lives? All we have is Zimmerman's account because instead of using his fists he used a gun.

I remember when I was 10 years old and on vacation with my family and walking by the pool alone an older kid ran up to me and put me in a headlock for no reason. Had I been armed would it have been justified to pull out a firearm and shoot him? What if my dad was watching at the time. Would he be justified in shooting the kid in the head to free me?

If I'm walking down the street and some bum asks me for change, I refuse, and they then run up behind me and push me to the ground would I be justified in pulling out my 38 and blowing him away?

The law has some problems. Here with the Zimmerman case the first problem is that despite what Zimmerman says we pretty much all know he put himself in this situation and was actually seeking it out. That's very different than shooting a home invader or car jacker.

Even if that was true, it's 100% irrelevant. If Martin was afraid, all he had to do was keep walking. No one was threatening his life and you can't simply argue "I felt threatened" as the law defines the criteria that's its be met.

At the end of it all, he just had to keep waking. Someone following you doesn't mean your life is in danger. There are no facts that support the idea the Zimmerman was between Martin and where Martin wanted to go..

reasonable person?

you're referring to the dude that stalked a resident of a neighbourhood the 'reasonable person' was meant to protect, till he shot him?

:1orglaugh

He followed him while guiding police to him. That's not stalking, that's doing his job.

Crazy how so many argue with emotion and no reason.

He didn't walk, he ran. He felt threatened enough to run away.

How do you know what he felt?

You don't.

And it's still 100% irrelevant if Zimmerman wasn't preventing him to get to where he was going. Feeling threatened is not enough anymore than feeling like a unicorn is relevant.

Yep, any time someone hits you punches you in the face and gives you a fat lip... You can shoot them dead.

that's funny, i recall a 911 transcript specifically stating not to follow

so you were saying?

The 911 operator did not "specifically" say that. But why do you need facts,

Maybe Martin was running for his health.

Well I would suggest that your analogy with the eight year old girl...would not pass the "reasonable person" test. In other words...how would your analogy play in front of a jury of "reasonable people"?

Maybe he was trying to evade a neighborhood watch guy as he watched him and listened to him call 911?

Maybe you can say maybe forever and it will never change the facts of the case. He's not being tried for the feelings of others. He being tried on the facts.

'should i follow him?'

'we don't need you to do that'

Right, thank you for correcting yourself. That's hardly instruction and has been said 1,000,000 times already, the 911 operator has no authority to tell anyone what to do.

But..... The 911 did in fact tell him that.

911: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
911: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

2:27....

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

Thank god we have proof so we know exactly what 911 told George.

I live in Florida and I think that's fucked up. Firstly a distinction should be made where it's clearly on your property versus elsewhere such as in public. On your property you should have no duty to retreat. But in public you should have to try to reasonably minimize the situation such as by trying to walk away or get help from others where reasonable.

Then a distinction needs to be made between willingly putting yourself in the situation versus having it thrust upon you. If you start a fight or confrontation or are basically acting as if you were a law enforcement officer you should not have the same protection as someone who shoots an armed robber during a home invasion.

If this continues on we are going to see all sorts of bar fights devolve into this where the loser decides to blow the other guy away and then claim self defense and "stand your ground".

"We do not require you to follow him" is hardly the same as "do not follow him"

In some states the law requires one to retreat if possible before you can apply self defense. In some states even in your own home you can only use deadly force if you are confronted with deadly force.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with a law that uses the "reasonable person" test.

Actually it makes a big difference. Reverse the situation a bit and change it around. If this occurred in broad daylight and if Trayvon were instead a known resident who was on top of Zimmerman would Zimmerman still have been justified shooting him after other residents witnessed it and the police were called?

Most people would say "No." The unknowns and the situation are relevant. Zimmerman didn't know who Martin was and it was night. But the same is true for Martin. He didn't know who Zimmerman was. He didn't know what he wanted.

And we have no idea as to how the physical confrontation actually began other than what Zimmerman claims.

It seems like no matter how many facts come out in the case that very few people stray from their original "beliefs" about what happened.

I still haven't heard an explanation of how a person pinned down being straddled around the ribs with knees up to his armpits (according to testimony, not conjecture) manages to first knock the top guys hand off his gun, but then draw it himself and fire.

I've been wanting them to demonstrate that in court.


I also would mention for those of you who feel GZ was totally normal to follow in the first place, the officer on the stand 2 days ago stated that if he had been on patrol that night and driven past TM doing all the things GZ said, he would NOT find it suspicious. When asked why not, he responded that TM could have lived there or been making his way home or even waiting for a ride. So unless a) residents had called for police already or b) he had been in the act of some crime, the officer would have thought very little of it.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

really?

so lets say you have someone unconscious.. 911 says not to touch them, you do anyway

in your mind, and argument here, you are saying 'you wouldn't be at fault for touching them'

911 didn't say that. Had they said that, it's no more relevant than any other individual saying it.

What the 911 operator should have said is "Stop being a jack ass and get back in the truck and let police do their job".

When he says "we do not require you to follow him" they mean "do not follow him".