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.
One of the key timeline issues the defense pointed out was the amount of time Martin had to get home after initially running from Zimmerman. This allowed the defense to separate the two incidents... i.e. Zimmerman profiling/following Martin was disconnected from Martin "assaulting" Zimmerman. Combine that with the physical injuries that Zimmerman received and the lack of injuries (other than the GSW) to Martin, and it's easy to see how the defense won the trial.
In hindsight, do you think the prosecution should have more forcefully introduced the theory that it was Martin who was acting in self defense? After all, the Florida self defense/stand your ground law doesn't require a person in fear of their life (evidenced by Martin initially running from Zimmerman) to retreat... thus there was no requirement for Martin to run home, and he was well within his rights to lay in wait for Zimmerman and jump out in self defense as Zimmerman walked through the neighborhood searching for Martin.
It just seems to me that the defense was able to win this case by separating the two confrontations between Zimmerman and Martin... and the prosecution, by sitting idly, allowed that swap of aggressor/self defender.
The prosecution tried pretty hard to do that with Ms. Jeantel since an aggressor may not claim self-defense, but she proved to be a terrible witness for that purpose.
The prosecution didn't necessarily drop the ball, I think they just never held the ball.
Huh? Martin attacked Zimmerman! He should have been inside his father's apartment. He was only moments away.
Again, Florida has a stand your ground law, he did not have to retreat to the apartment. Furthermore, he was not supposed to be anywhere, as he had every right to be outside. Your kind of proving my point though, there seems to be this disconnect for people on the pro-Zimmy side that the two confrontations (initially profiling/following/chasing) was a separate incident from the physical confrontation due to the fact that a few minutes elapsed and Martin could have retreated to the apartment. The fact is, there are no provisions in the Florida SYG/Self defense laws that put a time limit on standing your ground... and obviously none that require an individual to retreat (which is the exact opposite of SYG.) What can be established by Martin's behavior and the phone call he was on during the confrontations, he was in fear of a stranger following/chasing him... thus had every right to stand his ground and defend himself.
One of the key timeline issues the defense pointed out was the amount of time Martin had to get home after initially running from Zimmerman. This allowed the defense to separate the two incidents... i.e. Zimmerman profiling/following Martin was disconnected from Martin "assaulting" Zimmerman. Combine that with the physical injuries that Zimmerman received and the lack of injuries (other than the GSW) to Martin, and it's easy to see how the defense won the trial.
In hindsight, do you think the prosecution should have more forcefully introduced the theory that it was Martin who was acting in self defense? After all, the Florida self defense/stand your ground law doesn't require a person in fear of their life (evidenced by Martin initially running from Zimmerman) to retreat... thus there was no requirement for Martin to run home, and he was well within his rights to lay in wait for Zimmerman and jump out in self defense as Zimmerman walked through the neighborhood searching for Martin.
It just seems to me that the defense was able to win this case by separating the two confrontations between Zimmerman and Martin... and the prosecution, by sitting idly, allowed that swap of aggressor/self defender.
Tactially not advisable to propose something so ridiculous on its face. Degrades credibiity (as if they had any).
Tactially not advisable to propose something so ridiculous on its face. Degrades credibiity (as if they had any).
Why is it ridiculous? Martin ran in fear from a unknown man that was following him in a car and then got out of his car and followed/chased him. Why isn't Martin allowed to be in fear of his life which was evidenced by running and the comments he made on the phone?
Again, Florida has a stand your ground law, he did not have to retreat to the apartment. Furthermore, he was not supposed to be anywhere, as he had every right to be outside. Your kind of proving my point though, there seems to be this disconnect for people on the pro-Zimmy side that the two confrontations (initially profiling/following/chasing) was a separate incident from the physical confrontation due to the fact that a few minutes elapsed and Martin could have retreated to the apartment. The fact is, there are no provisions in the Florida SYG/Self defense laws that put a time limit on standing your ground... and obviously none that require an individual to retreat (which is the exact opposite of SYG.) What can be established by Martin's behavior and the phone call he was on during the confrontations, he was in fear of a stranger following/chasing him... thus had every right to stand his ground and defend himself.
Assault is not defense. I can't pin you to the ground while punching you and try to claim self defense. No jury in the country would buy that claim even if the altercation started off as self defense.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if
(1) He or she 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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
One of the key timeline issues the defense pointed out was the amount of time Martin had to get home after initially running from Zimmerman. This allowed the defense to separate the two incidents... i.e. Zimmerman profiling/following Martin was disconnected from Martin "assaulting" Zimmerman. Combine that with the physical injuries that Zimmerman received and the lack of injuries (other than the GSW) to Martin, and it's easy to see how the defense won the trial.
In hindsight, do you think the prosecution should have more forcefully introduced the theory that it was Martin who was acting in self defense? After all, the Florida self defense/stand your ground law doesn't require a person in fear of their life (evidenced by Martin initially running from Zimmerman) to retreat... thus there was no requirement for Martin to run home, and he was well within his rights to lay in wait for Zimmerman and jump out in self defense as Zimmerman walked through the neighborhood searching for Martin.
It just seems to me that the defense was able to win this case by separating the two confrontations between Zimmerman and Martin... and the prosecution, by sitting idly, allowed that swap of aggressor/self defender.
The prosecution made many mistakes. They should have had their own animated video of how this could have transpired from TM's point of view which also would highlight the lies that GZ told in refernce to his following TM. They also should have had a demonstration of how easily a head would crack open if slammed against concrete as repeatedly as Zimmerman claimed his was.
They should have used Rachel Jeantel's testimony to map out the confrontation part of the video.
When the defense was using that foam rubber dummy to demonstrate how GZ's head was being slammed, the prosecution should have pointed out that a real body and head weigh much more than foam.
Why didn't they have more witnesses on the stand that knew TM? They had many people, friends and family holding vigils for him and yet the defense brought everyone up to the stand with the exception of the doctor that delivered George.
One of the key timeline issues the defense pointed out was the amount of time Martin had to get home after initially running from Zimmerman. This allowed the defense to separate the two incidents... i.e. Zimmerman profiling/following Martin was disconnected from Martin "assaulting" Zimmerman. Combine that with the physical injuries that Zimmerman received and the lack of injuries (other than the GSW) to Martin, and it's easy to see how the defense won the trial.
In hindsight, do you think the prosecution should have more forcefully introduced the theory that it was Martin who was acting in self defense? After all, the Florida self defense/stand your ground law doesn't require a person in fear of their life (evidenced by Martin initially running from Zimmerman) to retreat... thus there was no requirement for Martin to run home, and he was well within his rights to lay in wait for Zimmerman and jump out in self defense as Zimmerman walked through the neighborhood searching for Martin.
It just seems to me that the defense was able to win this case by separating the two confrontations between Zimmerman and Martin... and the prosecution, by sitting idly, allowed that swap of aggressor/self defender.
Given Martin's lack of injuries, a self defense claim would be laughable. Zimmerman was the clear victim of assault here. They would have to have shown that Martin had injuries inflicted by Zimmerman in order to claim self defense. He didn't so there can be no self defense claim. His only injuries, besides the gunshot wound, were to his fist from, allegedly pummeling Zimmerman....unless you believe that Zimmerman beat him on his fists using his face....
Given Martin's lack of injuries, a self defense claim would be laughable. Zimmerman was the clear victim of assault here. They would have to have shown that Martin had injuries inflicted by Zimmerman in order to claim self defense. He didn't so there can be no self defense claim. His only injuries, besides the gunshot wound, were to his fist from, allegedly pummeling Zimmerman....unless you believe that Zimmerman beat him on his fists using his face....
You are ignoring the obvious. If someone suspects a person that was tailing them has a gun, they are going to jump all over them to stop them from using it. GZ admitted that he reached into his pocket in TM's presence (how ****ing dumb was that?) for his cell phone. Little did TM realize, that GZ's gun was on another part of his anatomy. The detective in the video asked GZ if he realized how that pocket reaching would come across to TM and I am surprised and disappointeed that the prosecution did not highlight this.
Given Martin's lack of injuries, a self defense claim would be laughable. Zimmerman was the clear victim of assault here. They would have to have shown that Martin had injuries inflicted by Zimmerman in order to claim self defense. He didn't so there can be no self defense claim. His only injuries, besides the gunshot wound, were to his fist from, allegedly pummeling Zimmerman....unless you believe that Zimmerman beat him on his fists using his face....
Not true at all. There is no provision that Martin was required to have been assaulted prior to defending himself, he only had to fear that Zimmerman could cause great bodily harm or death. For example, Zimmerman had the gun... if he had unholstered it, or made mention of it, Martin would have been well within his rights to defend himself from fear of great bodily harm... the law was posted above, read it:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Also what I'm getting at here, and one of the reason's SYG is bad law, you get these situations of run-away, escalating violence in which both sides have the ability to claim self defense... essentially legalizing turning a fist fight into a fight to the death.
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.
