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.
Clearly, many of the posters here have never been in a fight outside of some gradeschool shoving or taken any martial training if they can't grasp how a badly out of shape doughboy could get taken out by a fit wirey guy even though he's lighter.
DMX would have beat him up easily. I was looking forward to it on many levels, particularily when you see how unathletic Zimmerman is....
The evidence didn't support Zimmerman. The jurors acquitted because of reasonable doubt....there wasn't enough evidence to support either theory. BUT we do know that Zimmerman admitted to following Trayvonn which he should not have done. Who is he to profile someone?? This person who has had a run in with the law himself years before this happened and a couple of times since then? Who is he to pass judgement on Trayvonn and label him a criminal? He needs to look in the mirror.
The part that hurt the murder case was the gf's testimony that he'd evaded Zimmerman, had almost gotten home but was angry and wanted to see what Zimmerman wanted.
Doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, but the fact is that Trayvon went back and that allows Zimmerman a more plausible self-defense claim. That right there hurts the murder case a lot.
We'll never know 100% for certain since we don't have video. <shrug>
I think a civil suit would have been interesting to see excluded evidence come out but Zimmerman has no money, so no point suing him and on top of that it would dredge up dirt and be traumatic to the family whom has already collected a sizable settlement to help with their costs, counseling etc.
The part that hurt the murder case was the gf's testimony that he'd evaded Zimmerman, had almost gotten home but was angry and wanted to see what Zimmerman wanted.
Doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, but the fact is that Trayvon went back and that allows Zimmerman a more plausible self-defense claim. That right there hurts the murder case a lot.
We'll never know 100% for certain since we don't have video. <shrug>
I think a civil suit would have been interesting to see excluded evidence come out but Zimmerman has no money, so no point suing him and on top of that it would dredge up dirt and be traumatic to the family whom has already collected a sizable settlement to help with their costs, counseling etc.
This^^^
I always thought and said in other threads that,both side were dead wrong that night.
Trayvon should of kept walking home that night and should have called his dad or the police on Zimmerman.
I honestly believe Zimmerman wasn't looking to kill anybody that night(especially a kid).
What I do believe is, he made a bad judgment in following Trayvon that night. The bad judgment call on Zimmerman's part that night,could be do the prescription medication he was on,but never tested for.
( Thanks Florida).
Zimmerman up to the point of the Trayvon tragedy, had been a good watch captain and neighbor. He had help police catch many burglars without chasing them down.
Zimmerman needs to quit feeling sorry for himself, get some therapy and just go away!
This^^^
I always thought and said in other threads that,both side were dead wrong that night.
Trayvon should of kept walking home that night and should have called his dad or the police on Zimmerman.
I honestly believe Zimmerman wasn't looking to kill anybody that night(especially a kid).
What I do believe is, he made a bad judgment in following Trayvon that night. The bad judgment call on Zimmerman's part that night,could be do the prescription medication he was on,but never tested for.
( Thanks Florida).
Zimmerman up to the point of the Trayvon tragedy, had been a good watch captain and neighbor. He had help police catch many burglars without chasing them down.
Zimmerman needs to quit feeling sorry for himself, get some therapy and just go away!
Yeah, I'd never want ANY watch people wandering my neighborhood armed, let alone Zimmerman.
It's really sad at this juncture and after all the evidence has come out how so many people don't even know basic facts.
It's like they made up their mind within 15minutes of the news breaking and pretty much stopped paying much attention after that.
We'll never know exactly what went down at the end but the jury felt there was insufficient proof of guilt, although I would suspect that in a civil trial that might not be the case but we will never see that either.
The part that hurt the murder case was the gf's testimony that he'd evaded Zimmerman, had almost gotten home but was angry and wanted to see what Zimmerman wanted.
Doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, but the fact is that Trayvon went back and that allows Zimmerman a more plausible self-defense claim. That right there hurts the murder case a lot.
Kudos to Pedro Martinez, who continues to write rationally, based on analysis of facts.
Regarding the post quoted above, this is all true, but the whole thing goes beyond the notion that Martin's going back and looking for Zimmerman makes for a more plausible self-defense claim. By law, in order to be allowed the use of force for self-defense, a person must, as the result of an unlawful aggression, either be actually attacked or face the imminent threat of harm. This combination of elements to lawful self-defense really wrecks any legal justification for Trayvon Martin's attack against Zimmerman.
First, there is nothing unlawful about reporting a suspicious person to the police, then, while still on the phone with the police, following that person to keep him in sight so that you can tell the dispatcher where the officers can find the SP when they arrive in the area. Right away there is a legal problem with Martin's response to being followed, because there was nothing unlawful about Zimmerman's initial conduct.
Second, even the perceived threat when someone appears to be following you is no more than a potential threat, not the imminent threat of harm necessary to justify use of force in self-defense. Legally, "imminent," as in imminent threat in cases of self-defense, means imminent. It means that the person being threatened must act in the moment to defend himself, or be attacked in the next moment. Even allowing for the fact that for all Martin knew Zimmerman could have been intending to mug him, the mere act of following falls well short of the imminent threat of harm.
Third, even in the case of an imminent threat, or an actual attack for that matter, once the aggression ends, the law requires the person defending himself to stop using force. The law allows the use of force as necessary for self-defense, not continued use of force when it's no longer needed after the aggression has ended. Continued use of force after an aggression has ended becomes retaliation, taking the law into your own hands, and the like, which the law does not allow. And that is even in the case of actual unlawful aggression that would legally justify the use of self-defense, which was not the case when Zimmerman merely followed Martin to keep an eye on him.
Just FYI, my knowledge of what I've just been discussing comes from past experience in law enforcement. There is more to self-defense law than the above, but this was just in response to Mathguy's observation.
Mathguy is correct that the girl's testimony that Martin said he had arrived back at the house where he'd been staying is significant, but that goes beyond simply making Zimmerman's claim of self-defense more plausible. It's a key piece of evidence. That testimony puts Martin back at the house, with Zimmerman no longer following, while the final moments of the incident--the beating and the shooting--took place back up near the front gate, in a different area of the complex.
Combined with some other key evidence (lack of evidence showing any physical aggression by GZ against TM when they first came face to face, the dispatcher's testimony and the transcript of GZ's complete conversation with the dispatcher) this adds up to some solid indication that Martin arrived back home after having perceived a potential but not imminent threat, and after even that potential threat had ended, instead of just going inside and letting that be the end of it, Martin went back toward the front of the complex, looking to start trouble with Zimmerman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
I always thought and said in other threads that,both side were dead wrong that night.
The issue of who was right or wrong seems to be affecting a lot of the discussion of this case, on this thread and others. From a legal standpoint, though, including the question of whether Zimmerman should even have been charged with any crime and put on trial, it does not matter--or at least should not matter--whether you or I or Jane L. Customer down the street thinks that either or both people involved in the incident did anything wrong. All that should matter legally is that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman broke any law whatsoever, and in fact there is a fair amount of evidence indicating affirmatively that he did not break any law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Trayvon should of kept walking home that night and should have called his dad or the police on Zimmerman.
He'd be alive today if he'd called the police. However, it's important to keep in mind that a black youth from a ghetto area (at least sort of ghetto) may not have absorbed the idea that you automatically just call the police when you think there may be trouble. Keeping that reality in mind does not mean that George Zimmerman had any obligation to lie there and let himself get beaten to death or whatever. Still the idea that it might not automatically occur to a black ghetto kid to call the police lends itself more to a broader understanding of the case than to a discussion of the legal issues. The reality that you can't necessarily say that Martin should have "just called the police" also lends support to those who view this case largely as a tragic misunderstanding.
(Reuters) - "The celebrity boxing match between rapper DMX and acquitted Florida killer George Zimmerman has been called off, its promoter said on Saturday after threats were made against him".
Interesting word choice by Reuters.
OR (in other words):
"The celebrity boxing match between rapper DMX and killer George Zimmerman acquitted because of Florida ... "
Someone else who appears to know little or nothing about the law.
As a former LEO, I'll ask not just to Weichert but anyone discussing this case:
Do you know the basics about general American law relating to use of force and self-defense?
Do you know how Florida's Stand Your Ground law differs from the law generally in use across the U.S.? Do you know how it is similar (or the same)? Do you know whether SYG was relevant in this case, and can you explain why or why not? (Here's a hint: It's not relevant here.)
Do you know the circumstances under which the law allows the use of any force in self-defense?
Do you know how much force the law allows you to use in self-defense?
Do you know whether the law ever allows for the use of a weapon against an unarmed person? If this is ever lawful, do you know under what circumstances?
Do you know the legal definition of deadly force? Do you know the circumstances under which the law allows the use of deadly force (with or without a weapon) in self-defense?
Do you know whether the law would hold Zimmerman culpable in some way for setting into motion the general sequence of events that culminated in Martin's death?
Do you know the level of certainty the law requires in order for a person to be charged with a crime and tried in criminal court? Do you know the name of this degree of certainty, how it is defined, and how it differs from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed for a conviction?
Do you know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means?
Do you know what is meant by the term "probable cause" and how it is applied in making arrests or bringing criminal charges? Do you know how probable cause might relate to this case?
Do you know the history of George Zimmerman's phone calls to the police in years prior to this incident (how often he called, what kinds of complaints he called about, etc.)?
Do you know the layout of the gated community where this incident occurred well enough to know the spots where all key moments of the incident occurred (and where these spots are located in relation to each other)?
Do you know the timeline of events in the incident, how far apart in time each stage of the incident occurred, etc.?
Are you familiar with the transcript of Zimmerman's entire conversation with the police dispatcher?
Are you familiar with Rachel Jeantel's statements and testimony about what Trayvon Martin said to her in their phone conversation?
Do you know what forensics experts testified to regarding the physical positions of GZ and TM in relation to each other at the time GZ fired the shot?
Do you know what DNA was found on each man, what injuries were present on each, whether there was any other evidence giving indication of how the struggle between the two took place?
I'm making this list off the top of my head, so I may have left something out, but if you can't honestly answer "yes" to all the above questions, then you are not truly qualified to speak knowledgeably about the legal issues of this case. Without being able to truthfully answer "yes" to all the above questions (and possibly others that aren't occurring to me at the moment), you are not qualified to know what the evidence indicates happened (or most likely happened, or can or cannot be proven to have happened) in this case, or what the law says about what happened. You are simply making guesses based on your own ideas about right and wrong and what the law "should" be.
Of course anyone can weigh in with an opinion about what seems right or wrong, but if you don't have some solid grounding in: laws related to self-defense; legal requirements for criminal charges, trials, or convictions; how to use evidence to determine what most likely has occurred, and what can and cannot be proven to have occurred, at the scene of an incident; and if you don't know all the basic facts about what evidence exists in this case, then at least please be aware that your feelings about what seems right and wrong here may not always match up well with what the law says.
By the way, when it comes to the cancelled boxing match that is the topic of this thread, I think it was a dumb move on Zimmerman's part to get involved in that. He would have done well to take to heart the testimonies at his trial of his MMA teacher and the use-of-force expert, who portrayed Zimmerman as a soft guy with little fighting skill.
On the other hand, this may also show the difficult situation that a person can find himself in after being involved in an infamous trial. Zimmerman may be desperate for money, because he's likely to have trouble getting hired for a typical kind of job.
Someone else who appears to know little or nothing about the law.
As a former LEO, I'll ask not just to Weichert but anyone discussing this case:
Do you know the basics about general American law relating to use of force and self-defense?
Do you know how Florida's Stand Your Ground law differs from the law generally in use across the U.S.? Do you know how it is similar (or the same)? Do you know whether SYG was relevant in this case, and can you explain why or why not? (Here's a hint: It's not relevant here.)
Do you know the circumstances under which the law allows the use of any force in self-defense?
Do you know how much force the law allows you to use in self-defense?
Do you know whether the law ever allows for the use of a weapon against an unarmed person? If this is ever lawful, do you know under what circumstances?
Do you know the legal definition of deadly force? Do you know the circumstances under which the law allows the use of deadly force (with or without a weapon) in self-defense?
Do you know whether the law would hold Zimmerman culpable in some way for setting into motion the general sequence of events that culminated in Martin's death?
Do you know the level of certainty the law requires in order for a person to be charged with a crime and tried in criminal court? Do you know the name of this degree of certainty, how it is defined, and how it differs from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed for a conviction?
Do you know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means?
Do you know what is meant by the term "probable cause" and how it is applied in making arrests or bringing criminal charges? Do you know how probable cause might relate to this case?
Do you know the history of George Zimmerman's phone calls to the police in years prior to this incident (how often he called, what kinds of complaints he called about, etc.)?
Do you know the layout of the gated community where this incident occurred well enough to know the spots where all key moments of the incident occurred (and where these spots are located in relation to each other)?
Do you know the timeline of events in the incident, how far apart in time each stage of the incident occurred, etc.?
Are you familiar with the transcript of Zimmerman's entire conversation with the police dispatcher?
Are you familiar with Rachel Jeantel's statements and testimony about what Trayvon Martin said to her in their phone conversation?
Do you know what forensics experts testified to regarding the physical positions of GZ and TM in relation to each other at the time GZ fired the shot?
Do you know what DNA was found on each man, what injuries were present on each, whether there was any other evidence giving indication of how the struggle between the two took place?
I'm making this list off the top of my head, so I may have left something out, but if you can't honestly answer "yes" to all the above questions, then you are not truly qualified to speak knowledgeably about the legal issues of this case. Without being able to truthfully answer "yes" to all the above questions (and possibly others that aren't occurring to me at the moment), you are not qualified to know what the evidence indicates happened (or most likely happened, or can or cannot be proven to have happened) in this case, or what the law says about what happened. You are simply making guesses based on your own ideas about right and wrong and what the law "should" be.
Of course anyone can weigh in with an opinion about what seems right or wrong, but if you don't have some solid grounding in: laws related to self-defense; legal requirements for criminal charges, trials, or convictions; how to use evidence to determine what most likely has occurred, and what can and cannot be proven to have occurred, at the scene of an incident; and if you don't know all the basic facts about what evidence exists in this case, then at least please be aware that your feelings about what seems right and wrong here may not always match up well with what the law says.
As I wrote, interesting word choice. And yes, killer. That was Reuters choice. Not mine. Take it up with them if you wish.
As it turns out, I was on the jury for a very bloody, grisly murder trial a few years ago. I do understand more than you might think. The interesting thing about that experience was that we the jury knew far less about the legal issues (or anything about the law itself for that matter) than anyone else in the court room. And yet, we were the ones who had to make the final decision.Think about that before your next lecture.
By the way, when it comes to the cancelled boxing match that is the topic of this thread, I think it was a dumb move on Zimmerman's part to get involved in that. He would have done well to take to heart the testimonies at his trial of his MMA teacher and the use-of-force expert, who portrayed Zimmerman as a soft guy with little fighting skill.
On the other hand, this may also show the difficult situation that a person can find himself in after being involved in an infamous trial. Zimmerman may be desperate for money, because he's likely to have trouble getting hired for a typical kind of job.
Zimmerman wasn't doing so well before he shot and killed Martin, as I recall.
He would do well to stay off our television screens, IMO.
This is another pathetic attempt to stay relevant and in the limelight.
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.
).
