Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I'll play. I'm pretty familiar with Florida's SYG law. Why don't you tell us how that law gave TM the right to assault GZ.
That law gave TM the right to defend himself and removed his obligation to retreat. Something you seem to have based your entire opinion on for some reason.
Stand Your Ground: "the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
If TM had a gun, he would have had the right to shoot Zim between the eyes with it. Remember, TM wouldn't have to prove that his life was in danger....the state would have to prove that it was not. That would have been impossible with the 911 tape, Zim's un-holstered gun, and his history of violence. Zim also would have had his blood tested for alcohol and drugs, which was not done in the real version of this story.
As mentioned earlier, Zim assaults, batters, and threatens to kill people with guns more frequently than most people rotate their tires. It is beyond all levels of probability that he did not do the same to a person who he actually shot.
Oh! I almost forgot to ask....name one reason TM would have initiated contact other than to defend himself from a stalker with a gun? There's no evidence that TM initiated anything or put Zim's life in danger, but for now, let's pretend there was. Why might he have done that?
As mentioned earlier, Zim assaults, batters, and threatens to kill people with guns more frequently than most people rotate their tires. It is beyond all levels of probability that he did not do the same to a person who he actually shot.
I don't think this is proof. GZ could have 50 cases involving weapons, but it doesn't prove that in one particular case he's guilty. All one can do is look at the evidence presented.
.. I can't prove the negative... Please supply a link to the tiniest crumb of evidence that indicates Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even paraphrase and indicate what you THINK was evidence at trial showing Martin attacking, if you're so sure of your position. .....
Non sequitur.
The question is pointless in regards to the trial. When Martin, made the decision to return to the scene, as described by star witness Rachel Jeantel, reasonable doubt was established and the case was over. What you demand, isn't likely to exist in the form that would satisfy you.
It's not a requirement, under Florida law, for Zimmerman to prove that he was attacked. It's the prosecution's job to prove that he wasn't attacked. Martin's actions made that impossible.
(It's interesting the TM supporters keep missing this simple fact, and want to frame the conversation as if it didn't exist.)
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 01-25-2015 at 03:10 AM..
Thank you so much for this well thought out and polite reply. Yes, I have noted the territorial tendencies with LE. There are several overlapping agencies in most areas of Florida. It's good when they need backup but not good when they argue over which agency should take the lead.
My friends in Seminole County were aware of GZ before this incident. Not sure about the Sanford PD but after his many calls to them he should have been known to them too. They mainly thought he was a nuisance calling them for children playing in the street, open garage doors and pot holes he thought could cause a wreck. When he started following people up and down I-4 in his car for speeding there was a lot of concern. A wannabe cop is a danger to himself, others and to actual LE. It takes a lot of training and time to become a good officer and to make sure you come home safe each night. Untrained people don't really stand a chance and GZ is a prime example of that. I truly feel that if TM had been a real criminal and not just a scared kid, GZ would have been the one killed. He never should have been out there running around in the dark after a suspect of any kind.
Neighborhood Watch is helpful when done correctly. The policies in place aren't laws but are there for a civilian's own protection. Eyes and ears only and never patrol. For instance if you see a strange car in front of your neighbor's home and someone you've never seen before carting off their TV, you should call and inform LE...and you should stay indoors or hidden and never follow or try to apprehend. In this part of Florida and also in Seminole County there is also a program for civilian's called Citizens on Patrol. GZ was offered this but turned it down when he learned there is a mandatory training course. He would have been strictly prohibited from carrying his gun and would have had to pass yearly tests. Those civilians are given a patrol car with a radio to dispatch. Only then are they allowed to actually patrol. Neighborhood watch's only role is to observe and call. I firmly believe GZ was patrolling in his vehicle after skipping the training. This way he could legally carry. This is very dangerous and way more than being a nuisance. I don't think anyone I know over there was aware he was actually patrolling but they sure think so now. For that reason, they keep an eye on him.
Just now getting back when I have time to respond, and not just to skim a few posts. Thanks for the info. Would like to rep this post, but repped you too recently to give more rep now.
Re the first part I've put in bold, great way of describing this. Your assessment of the advantages and disadvantages that result from overlapping LE agencies' turf hits right on with my recollections of that situation.
Second part in bold: I've read the history of GZ's calls to Sanford PD. I believe that during my time in law enforcement I too would have considered it a nuisance if the same person kept calling about all those minor concerns.
It depends on the situation. Reporting potholes, for instance. If an ordinary pothole suddenly opens up into something large enough to be an immediate hazard, then by all means call. However, for the same guy to be calling over and over about ordinary potholes, burned out streetlights, etc., would get annoying. Doubly annoying because routine maintenance issues aren't really a police matter anyway. An officer on patrol might make note of these when he observes them himself, but the city facilities dept. would be a better place for a citizen to report this kind of problem.
Re GZ's chasing speeders on the highway, have you heard about this from your LE acquaintances? That's an interesting bit of information I've never picked up from news sources. Adds to the picture, though, for sure.
There are a lot of recent posts about what various pieces of info are supposed to prove about the TM shooting case. As a former LEO (I used to do this for a living, and received praise from several quarters for my skill at investigation), I have my own views on what information amounts to significant evidence:
Rachel Jeantel's testimony (esp. what she says TM told her over the phone about where he was and what he was doing at various times during the encounter);
GZ's statements to police;
How the two points above compare to each other;
The police dispatcher's testimony about his conversation with GZ, as well as the tape and/or transcript of that call;
Statements and testimony by witnesses to the beating;
Injuries to TM and GZ;
DNA (in particular, the amount of GZ's DNA found on TM's body);
Grass stains and mud on GZ's and TM's clothing;
Gunshot residue;
The layout of the gated community, the locations where various stages of the encounter took place, and the times (as well as can be determined) when GZ and TM were present at these locations;
The testimony of an expert in use of force.
Maybe something is not coming to mind at the moment, but I think that's it.
Notice some points I did not list as important evidence, such as the talk in recent posts about whether GZ was caught in a lie and whether this means he lied about everything else (irrelevant, because you can piece together the sequence of events much better with the evidence I've listed than with the flustered statements of someone who has just been through an intense, traumatic situation), or some things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (at least not in the posts I've read, which isn't all 80-plus pages), such as who was heard screaming in the background on one of the neighbors' 911 calls.
Most of what I've just listed are categories of evidence, not all the details within each category. There are certain key details in each category. You need to know all of those details to draw an accurate conclusion about how this situation most likely unfolded. Not only do you need all that information, but you then need to piece it together correctly.
I pointed out in the early pages of this thread, when some of you posting more recently might not have seen my post, that real-life investigations are seldom like you see on basic entertainment kinds of cop shows on television. There's usually not one key piece of evidence that breaks a case open. Real-life investigations usually involve a painstaking process of piecing together all the evidence, and figuring out how it all fits together.
In many posts, on this thread and others about this topic, I've seen way too many posts where people focus on one point and seem to think that proves their point. It doesn't. You need to piece together all the evidence, and piece it together in a logically correct fashion. Before you can do that, you have to start with knowing what the evidence is. If you don't know key facts in every one of the categories I've listed above, you may think you have an ironclad picture of what happened, but you're really just flailing around in the dark.
.
In many posts, on this thread and others about this topic, I've seen way too many posts where people focus on one point and seem to think that proves their point. It doesn't.....
The only one point that matters is how the Jury decided it.
Everything else either falls under the categories of conspiracy, "I'm Black and ...... are racist", or a complete disregard for Florida law.
The only one point that matters is how the Jury decided it.
Everything else either falls under the categories of conspiracy, "I'm Black and ...... are racist", or a complete disregard for Florida law.
I don't quite understand anyone who says the 'only point' is how the jury decided it, but continues to participate in discussions. Not just the GZ trial, but any trial.
That's a little like saying the only point that matters is Casey Anthony and OJ were ruled not guilty, so it's pointless to discuss those subjects.
Though I think the evidence supported the NG verdict, there's more to those who disagree than racism, conspiracies, and ignoring the law.
What kind of sources did you utilize to follow the case very closely? I can't prove the negative. Please supply a link to the tiniest crumb of evidence that indicates Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even paraphrase and indicate what you THINK was evidence at trial showing Martin attacking, if you're so sure of your position.
You are quite wrong, your claims are completely unfounded and unsupported.
Seriously? Do you disregard the physical evidence (cuts on the back of GZ head, Dr. report of a broken nose) and the eyewitness testimony that TM was on top of GZ beating him? Or is it your contention that GZ physically attacked TM first, and then shot TM when TM was getting the better of him? Because there is NO evidence of that.
That law gave TM the right to defend himself and removed his obligation to retreat. Something you seem to have based your entire opinion on for some reason.
What was TM defending himself from? Being followed? GZ did nothing that would give TM the legal right to attack him.
Quote:
If TM had a gun, he would have had the right to shoot Zim between the eyes with it.
Why? Because he had been followed?
Quote:
Oh! I almost forgot to ask....name one reason TM would have initiated contact other than to defend himself from a stalker with a gun? There's no evidence that TM initiated anything or put Zim's life in danger, but for now, let's pretend there was. Why might he have done that?
Would your contention be that young black males only instigate violent encounters when they are being stalked by someone with a gun?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
