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.
What's the point of a trial if this is so cut and dried?
The same point in arresting him in the first place....to shut up the racial extortionists and people who are mentally incapable of accepting the idea the kid assaulted GZ and died as a result of his actions.
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.
In the context of this discussion, based on GZ's claims (which I rarely see specifically disputed), a reasonable fear did exist and he did not provoke the attack. That is my point. If he is telling the truth, he is completely justified. There is no disparity of force here, a response to imminent grave bodily injury with a level of force that can cause grave bodily injury is equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
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."
Agreed.
Provided that he in fact did not provoke the attack, and was having his head slammed on the concrete.
And of course, following someone for a matter of minutes is not provocation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
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.
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in your own post?
The trayvoniacs have been pulling up GZ's record from day one, calling him a racist (completely unsubstantiated), etc etc.
Pot meet kettle.
Character is most definitely relevant when determining who is and who is not lying on some discussion board on the internet.
I have one question and I'd really like to avoid wading through hundreds of post in a hundred threads.
Does anyone even dispute that TM initiated whatever physical altercation there was?
Believe it or not, there are actually morons who believe TM never laid a finger on GZ. They think GZ walked up, shot TM, then injured himself to make it look good for the cops. All of the evidence in the world would never convince them otherwise, they see it as nothing more than an act of racism.
The scary part is people like this are actually out in public, among us, and they choose to breed and vote.
Euthanization is whats needed for people like that.
In the context of this discussion, based on GZ's claims (which I rarely see specifically disputed), a reasonable fear did exist and he did not provoke the attack. That is my point. If he is telling the truth, he is completely justified. There is no disparity of force here, a response to imminent grave bodily injury with a level of force that can cause grave bodily injury is equal.
Agreed.
Provided that he in fact did not provoke the attack, and was having his head slammed on the concrete.
And of course, following someone for a matter of minutes is not provocation.
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in your own post?
The trayvoniacs have been pulling up GZ's record from day one, calling him a racist (completely unsubstantiated), etc etc.
Pot meet kettle.
Character is most definitely relevant when determining who is and who is not lying on some discussion board on the internet.
So you're calling ME a liar and a person of poor character? Thanks for playing. I'm done with responding to you.
Believe it or not, there are actually morons who believe TM never laid a finger on GZ. They think GZ walked up, shot TM, then injured himself to make it look good for the cops. All of the evidence in the world would never convince them otherwise, they see it as nothing more than an act of racism.
The scary part is people like this are actually out in public, among us, and they choose to breed and vote.
Euthanization is whats needed for people like that.
As opposed to the idiots who think that even if GZ was attacked, he is still responsible because he decided to walk around his neighborhood in the first place?
Honestly I'd give the former more credit than the latter.
The latter group does not care if it was self defense or not, they just want the guy locked up.
Note - I'd still like some of the "justice for Trayvon" crowd's input on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So you're calling ME a liar and a person of poor character? Thanks for playing. I'm done with responding to you.
Uh, no, I'm saying you're being a hypocrite.
I called group A hypocrites, you said no, group B is hypocrites, for doing exactly the same thing.
That is hypocritical.
The self righteous defense won't work, sorry. I wasn't talking about your character. Where did you get that from? What would you be lying about?
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.
What's the point of a trial if this is so cut and dried?
The defense wants to keep out gz's record and the state wants to keep out tm's texts, pictures, and school reords. In my opinion, tm is hurt more than gz if all is allowed at trial.
gz hit a woman and pushed an undercover cops arms away from him, both I think more than 7 or 8 years before he killed tm. He was using legal prescription drugs.
Near the time of being killed, tm was a regular user of at least one illegal drug; was suspended from school multiple times; was involved with fighting as a hobby; wrote of being a gangsta. We know for a fact that he committed at least 2 criminal activities --- possession of marijuana and vandalism --- that the school handled internally rather than refer to police. There's more, but that's enough 'character assassination' for now.
I have one question and I'd really like to avoid wading through hundreds of post in a hundred threads.
Does anyone even dispute that TM initiated whatever physical altercation there was?
Look, I'm considered a gz supporter by the IAmTrayvon's, and even I can 'dispute' who initiated the physical altercation. gz could have thrown the 1st punch and missed, or hit tm on the shoulder, or had the punch blocked, etc. I believe tm threw the 1st punch, but other than what gz says happened, it can't be 'proven.'
If you ask if there's any evidence that gz hit 1st, the answer is no.
The defense wants to keep out gz's record and the state wants to keep out tm's texts, pictures, and school reords. In my opinion, tm is hurt more than gz if all is allowed at trial.
gz hit a woman and pushed an undercover cops arms away from him, both I think more than 7 or 8 years before he killed tm. He was using legal prescription drugs.
Near the time of being killed, tm was a regular user of at least one illegal drug; was suspended from school multiple times; was involved with fighting as a hobby; wrote of being a gangsta. We know for a fact that he committed at least 2 criminal activities --- possession of marijuana and vandalism --- that the school handled internally rather than refer to police. There's more, but that's enough 'character assassination' for now.
IMO, you're wrong. TM had no criminal record. GZ has an arrest record. GZ was using some pretty strong prescription drugs. A drug is no less harmful b/c it is prescription. GZ has a history of violence.
We have no idea if TM was a regular user of marijuana. He has no history of violence. It's not clear if his "vandalism" was a criminal act. Lots of kids commit the same at school. GZ may have, for all we know, when he was in school. And, more to the point, it's irrelevant. GZ did not know TM when he KILLED him. He didn't know anything about him. He could not have used any information about TM when he shot him dead.
IMO, you're wrong. TM had no criminal record. GZ has an arrest record. GZ was using some pretty strong prescription drugs. A drug is no less harmful b/c it is prescription. GZ has a history of violence.
We have no idea if TM was a regular user of marijuana. He has no history of violence. It's not clear if his "vandalism" was a criminal act. Lots of kids commit the same at school. GZ may have, for all we know, when he was in school. And, more to the point, it's irrelevant. GZ did not know TM when he KILLED him. He didn't know anything about him. He could not have used any information about TM when he shot him dead.
No ****, sherlock. I don't think anyone would be as stupid as to insinuate such. At least try to get the point straight before you argue against it. Jesus.
Why are you bringing up GZ's record? To judge his character to determine who is and who is not telling the truth, and who is or is not the type of person who would provoke a physical altercation.
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.
