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.
People's ignorance to the law is astonishing to say the least. I am not taking side but just want to point out the ignorance. I am not a lawyer so do your own due diligence:
1. Following someone is not illegal. For "following someone" to become illegal, you need to establish a trend to show repeated behavior to a point of being harassment.
2. Disobeying "orders" from 911 dispatch is not illegal.
You are a free citizen of the state. Unless you are doing something illegal or endangering other people's life, even the president of the United States can't order you to do anything.
3. Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to shoot just because you "feel" you are in some danger. No, you can't shoot someone because he looked at you in a wrong way and hope not going to be charged for First Degree Murder. Your fear of danger needs to be judged based on "reasonableness", in another word, what a reasonable person would do when he was in your shoes. This is the fundamental of our law system.
4. One thing a lot people forget is that Zimmerman was not on the public street. He was in a private, gated community where he was a legal resident and home owner. He has every right to investigate any suspicious activity, actually any activity he likes to investigate.
Cold hard facts.
It doesn't matter what he "should" have done. If the guy attacked him, he had every right to shoot him dead. If they guy didn't attack him, he didn't.
End of story. That's all that's relevant. Period.
Let me also point out the hypocricy of the Trayvoniacs' insistence on digging into GZ's life for the past ten years while claiming that character is irrelevant when the tables are turned.
So the kid might have smoked a joint at some point = he deserved to die, apparently.
In post # 2, I went through the reasons that would be given by the IAmTrayvon's for ignoring the new info about drugs, fighting, etc.
"character assasination, Irrelevant and immaterial. He was an innocent child walking home with Skittles and iced tea the night gz killed him, and that's all that matters. He was a typical teen, nobody's perfect. tm is not on trial. A slimy defense effort to taint the jury pool. gz has a criminal record, a past history of violence, took Adderall. tm didn't deserve to die.
I was responding to someone else's post about GZ's rationale for stopping TM. Capiche?
Zimmerman didnt stop TM, he was following him.. But even if he did, are you saying being stopped is justification for someone bashing your head in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Good for you. That jagoff GZ did not know the name of his own street. Don't you find that odd? Perhaps he was lying?
Wrong, it wasnt his street, it was the main street going through the neighborhood. Nope, dont find it odd, especially in todays day and age where I never look at street names cause of GPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Well then you're a wizard. It wasn't screams. It was yells for help. They weren't even muffled cries for help. Get real.
If he was out to kill TM, why was he yelling for help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper
Zimmerman case proves that the far right hates blacks more than they hate hispanics.
About as much so as it proves blacks are out to attack mexicans.
Don't you know the names of the streets nearby your house? I know ALL of them in my subdivision. And GZ was referring to a main road in the development. At a minimum, he could have said, the "suspect" is near "5th and Vine" or whatever. Unless he was lying and didn't want to disclose a locale.
I know the name of two streets in my neighborhood.
the one I live on, and the main highway its off of..
I cant even tell you the name of the street that runs behind my house, dont care. I have a GPS to tell me where to go when I need to leave.
Ooh I guess I'm a murder as well..
Dont you even understand how ridiculous your argument is? He doesnt know the name of a street, so he was out to kill TM, even though he simply could have not called 911 at all?
He gave several statements to police. Here is one from 2/27/2012. I think it was his first police interview.
"Zimmerman: I yelled out for help and then he tried to smother my mouth and my nose…
Serino: Who yelled for help?
Zimmerman: I did.
Serino: OK and at which point he did what?
Zimmerman: He smothered my mouth and my nose.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: And when he did that I tried to slide out and squirm…
Serino: Uh huh
Zimmerman: And I realized, um, my, my shirt came up and I felt him slide his hand toward my right side…
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: And he said, “You’re gonna die, mother****erâ€. And then that’s when I grabbed it. I, I don’t know if it was away from him or you know, I just, unholstered.."
So Zimmerman is saying that he was yelling for help, and then Trayvon was trying to smother his mouth and nose. And that "when he did that" Zimmerman tried to slide out from under him, and then in this version he says Trayvon's hand slid towards the gun, and that Trayvon was threatening him.
In the audio of the 911 call you can hear the cries for help, and they end abruptly when there is a gunshot. Whereas Zimmerman says he cried for help several seconds earlier, and then was smothered, and while being smothered was squirming. There would have been a gap in the cries while he was being smothered. And they would not have been cut off abruptly with the gunshot, because according to Zimmerman he didn't know Trayvon was mortally wounded, and he pinned Trayvons arms to the ground on either side of him. If it had been him yelling for help, why wouldn't he have continued, until the neighbour approached them a few seconds later?
Why was he crying out for help? Oh thats right, because his head was being bashed into the cement floor. The nerve of him, he should have just taken his beating like a man, (per another poster) and laid there..
It doesn't matter what he "should" have done. If the guy attacked him, he had every right to shoot him dead. If they guy didn't attack him, he didn't.
End of story. That's all that's relevant. Period.
Let me also point out the hypocricy of the Trayvoniacs' insistence on digging into GZ's life for the past ten years while claiming that character is irrelevant when the tables are turned.
I am sorry, no, he can not. Well, he can but he may go to jail.
The point of law on self-defense is that we can only respond to an attack with equal force. Fist to fist, weapon to weapon. There's also a point of "disparity of force", meaning if the attacker is much stronger or you are outnumbered, even they are unarmed, you are then justified to use armed response.
That's self-defense. When comes to self-defense with deadly force, the law cannot be more clear. We can only use deadly force when the threat is immediate and having the potential to cause grave bodily harm. Someone swings a punch at you doesn't count. The only exception is when someone breaks into your home. All bets are off for the home intruder. You are free to shoot to kill without warning when someone breaks into your home with force. "With force" means the intruder must push the door open or something similar. If you left your front door wide often and someone walks in, you can't shoot him.
The last point is that you must have not provoked the whole event. If you incited the fight and your opponent got a few buddies stumping you to death, you shooting them would land yourself a nice Second Degree Murder.
So, here are the questions:
1. Did Z man provoke the whole event?
No, he was in his own private, gated community investigating a suspicious activity and reporting such activity to authority. Furthermore, when instructed, he RETURNED to his vehicle.
2. Was the threat to Z would cause immediate grave bodily harm?
Yes. For any reasonable person, a head banging against a concrete floor poses a threat to cause immediate grave bodily harm.
3. Did TM have no choice but to attack Z in self-defense?
Yes, TM had choice, particularly when Z returned to his vehicle. In no time during the whole event, Z was threatening him in anyway. Remember, following someone is NOT illegal or threatening. TM could stand his ground but instead, he approached or attacked Z when Z was returning to his car - that act by no means is "standing your ground."
Why, I must throw it out, maybe, three or four times a day, to anyone standing within earshot.
Black, white, gay or WASP, I don't care.
I promise, though, I will never buy real estate from you.
Ohh no, I'm crushed. A race baiting bigot won't work with me because I refuse to accept his, "if you disagree with me it's because you are a racist" ideology.
I am sorry, no, he can not. Well, he can but he may go to jail.
The point of law on self-defense is that we can only respond to an attack with equal force. Fist to fist, weapon to weapon.
While the rest of your post was accurate, this portion is not.
There is no law in any state that requires "equal force".
You use enough force to stop the threat. If you have a knife, gun, or a bat, you are not required to drop those and only use your fists if someone is continually punching you. That is simply an absurd notion.
The idea is called reasonable force. Now, if as the evidence shows, TM was bashing GZ's head into the concrete, a reasonable person will conclude that there is a reasonable chance of death or grievous bodily harm, so deadly force is justifiable.
The evidence backs up GZ's version of the events, and unless something new pops up, he should be acquitted very easily if the case is tried on facts alone.
That being said, so many people have injected their emotion based hysteria into this case with charges of racism, and all kinds of other lies, his freedom could easily be taken away if they get a few idiots on the jury who see this as a racial issue and nothing more. If there are quite a few blacks on the jury, there is no way he gets acquitted. They see race first and foremost and care little about facts.
It doesn't matter what he "should" have done. If the guy attacked him, he had every right to shoot him dead. If they guy didn't attack him, he didn't.
End of story. That's all that's relevant. Period.
Let me also point out the hypocricy of the Trayvoniacs' insistence on digging into GZ's life for the past ten years while claiming that character is irrelevant when the tables are turned.
No, the hypocrisy comes from the GZ supporters who talk about Trayvon, a complete stranger to GZ at the time of the killing, which GZ had admitted to, calling Trayvon a thug, a drug abuser, yada, yada, who won't look at GZ arrest record, his drug use, his anger management issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
I am sorry, no, he can not. Well, he can but he may go to jail.
The point of law on self-defense is that we can only respond to an attack with equal force. Fist to fist, weapon to weapon. There's also a point of "disparity of force", meaning if the attacker is much stronger or you are outnumbered, even they are unarmed, you are then justified to use armed response.
That's self-defense. When comes to self-defense with deadly force, the law cannot be more clear. We can only use deadly force when the threat is immediate and having the potential to cause grave bodily harm. Someone swings a punch at you doesn't count. The only exception is when someone breaks into your home. All bets are off for the home intruder. You are free to shoot to kill without warning when someone breaks into your home with force. "With force" means the intruder must push the door open or something similar. If you left your front door wide often and someone walks in, you can't shoot him.
The last point is that you must have not provoked the whole event. If you incited the fight and your opponent got a few buddies stumping you to death, you shooting them would land yourself a nice Second Degree Murder.
So, here are the questions:
1. Did Z man provoke the whole event?
No, he was in his own private, gated community investigating a suspicious activity and reporting such activity to authority. Furthermore, when instructed, he RETURNED to his vehicle.
2. Was the threat to Z would cause immediate grave bodily harm?
Yes. For any reasonable person, a head banging against a concrete floor poses a threat to cause immediate grave bodily harm.
3. Did TM have no choice but to attack Z in self-defense?
Yes, TM had choice, particularly when Z returned to his vehicle. In no time during the whole event, Z was threatening him in anyway. Remember, following someone is NOT illegal or threatening. TM could stand his ground but instead, he approached or attacked Z when Z was returning to his car - that act by no means is "standing your ground."
What's the point of a trial if this is so cut and dried?
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.
