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.
By the way, why do people keep saying that Zimmerman was following Martin in his SUV? From the police call I heard, Zimmerman was sitting in his stationary vehicle, watching Martin who at one point, according to Zimmerman on that very call, was looking at and coming toward him in that vehicle. From where do we learn that Zimmerman was stalking him in his SUV? Did I miss something here?
First of all, I didn't not use the word "stalking." I said following.
Zimmerman said he was on his way to Target to run some errands when he noticed a suspicious person walking. Since Zimmerman lives on the other side of the development, how did his car get to where it was parked? Look at a map of the community and Trayvon Martin was shot in an entirely different section of the condo development which has 263 townhouses. I'm only using common sense. He had to be following him while driving, unless he was lying to the police. He wouldn't have turned in the opposite direction to go to Target.
Sounds more like he was on his way to find a target.
So one has to wait until ones head is actually split open and bleeding to be in fear for ones life? Having your head banged against the ground by a guy sitting on your chest is not enough to make a reasonable person fear for their life until their head actually cracks? Hmmm.
If someone is strangling you, at what point does that become life threatening? If you shoot the strangler just before you would have fallen unconscious, how life threatening will your wounds look? If someone is running at you with a hatchet, and you manage to shoot & kill them just before they actually swing it at your head, will your injuries demonstrate your level of jeopardy?
There is no law I know of that requires one be bleeding to death or near asphyxiation before they can use lethal force to defend themselves. I believe the standard is a reasonable fear for ones life. Do you honestly believe that having your head banged against the ground repeatedly by a person straddling your chest would NOT cause you to fear for your life?
I think a big problem here is what will be considered proof in the trial. The jury is instructed to use their common sense regarding witness credibility. What you may think will be required to "prove" Zimmerman was lying is probably not what you think.
The jury or judge will be asked whether or not THEY believe Zimmerman was really in fear for his life because that statement by him has not been accepted as the truth by the justice system at this point. The MAJOR thing to be considered when trying to determine his truthfulness of the statement is Zimmerman's past truthfulness or lack of truthfulness. The State attorney has filed 2nd degree murder charges against him because the State believes they have evidence that it was not a SYG case, that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life, that Zimmerman is lying, and that the self defense statute does not apply either. Of course the defense disagrees. The point I'm making is if the evidence was so obvious and compelling that Zimmerman was in fear for his life, the state would never have filed charges at all. So his statement is a disputed fact at this point.
I'm not sure about the standard being a "reasonable fear"......what does that mean? I think it's that one is in fear for their life. Why the "reasonable" qualifier?
Various cases have various circumstances. Cases that have CLEAR evidence of fear are not charged. This particular case obviously is not one where the evidence is CLEAR that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
First of all, I didn't not use the word "stalking." I said following.
Zimmerman said he was on his way to Target to run some errands when he noticed a suspicious person walking. Since Zimmerman lives on the other side of the development, how did his car get to where it was parked? Look at a map of the community and Trayvon Martin was shot in an entirely different section of the condo development which has 263 townhouses. I'm only using common sense. He had to be following him while driving, unless he was lying to the police. He wouldn't have turned in the opposite direction to go to Target.
Sounds more like he was on his way to find a target.
Maybe when he came home earlier, he was facing that way on the street & didn't want to make the u-turn, so drove around the block.
Or perhaps he decided that, on his way to Target, he would drive through the neighborhood to make sure all was quiet. He was, after all, obviously concerned with the safety of the neighborhood, and had demonstrated his willingness to take an active part in making the place safer for all the residents.
Maybe he was going to stop at the mailbox because he hadn't gotten his mail earlier in the day.
To say that he "had to be following him" is a significant stretch, don't you think? To suggest he was looking for someone to kill is ridiculous.
(In re the bolded portion of your post) The "law" would come and arrest you though for stalking and harassment and disturbing the peace, and possibly many other violations!
You'd never make it on the Zimmerman jury. Zimmerman entered Trayvon's space! Deal with it.
No Fancy, you deal with it. I notice no one seems to want to challenge the invasion of space fact. You can't just say, I am black and you are white and the law prohibits you from following me for that reason. You simply cannot, do not, and will not get your wayon that one. It is simply ...racist...to believe our laws should afford you that kind of shelter. racist to the extent that because you are of one color or another you should get a pass. Racist because you are shot by a person of one color or another opposite color or the same. Race simply has no baring.
People deserve the right to protect life and property. Being black does not give one cover from scrutiny.
That is really so immature, really xenophobic for lack of a better term.
Maybe when he came home earlier, he was facing that way on the street & didn't want to make the u-turn, so drove around the block.
Or perhaps he decided that, on his way to Target, he would drive through the neighborhood to make sure all was quiet. He was, after all, obviously concerned with the safety of the neighborhood, and had demonstrated his willingness to take an active part in making the place safer for all the residents.
Maybe he was going to stop at the mailbox because he hadn't gotten his mail earlier in the day.
To say that he "had to be following him" is a significant stretch, don't you think? To suggest he was looking for someone to kill is ridiculous.
Clearly, Zimmerman did not make the community safer for their guests.
The aggressor, Martin, had what's known as a "***** moment" A "***** moment" is described as a "A moment where ignorance overwhelms the logic of an otherwise rational negro man." If a person is allegedly shouting in your face and he has a gun, you don't try to beat his head into a pulp like the aggressor Martin did.
"beating hishead into a pulp"?
You should look up the definition of "pulp"...he had a few scratches on the back of his head and a scratch on his nose. Didn't even require any stitches.
I think a big problem here is what will be considered proof in the trial. The jury is instructed to use their common sense regarding witness credibility. What you may think will be required to "prove" Zimmerman was lying is probably not what you think.
The jury or judge will be asked whether or not THEY believe Zimmerman was really in fear for his life because that statement by him has not been accepted as the truth by the justice system at this point. The MAJOR thing to be considered when trying to determine his truthfulness of the statement is Zimmerman's past truthfulness or lack of truthfulness. The State attorney has filed 2nd degree murder charges against him because the State believes they have evidence that it was not a SYG case, that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life, that Zimmerman is lying, and that the self defense statute does not apply either. Of course the defense disagrees. The point I'm making is if the evidence was so obvious and compelling that Zimmerman was in fear for his life, the state would never have filed charges at all. So his statement is a disputed fact at this point.
I'm not sure about the standard being a "reasonable fear"......what does that mean? I think it's that one is in fear for their life. Why the "reasonable" qualifier?
Various cases have various circumstances. Cases that have CLEAR evidence of fear are not charged. This particular case obviously is not one where the evidence is CLEAR that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
The "reasonable" qualifier is there to prevent people from killing someone they afraid of just because that person walks by. The fear for ones life needs, I believe, to be reasonable in the circumstance.
As to your statement that the filing of the charges demonstrates a belief that Zimmerman is lying about the facts; I disagree. I think it's entirely possible that the police & the district attorney believed Zimmerman's story, and that the "special prosecutor" was assigned with the express instruction to file some charge.
The "reasonable" qualifier is there to prevent people from killing someone they afraid of just because that person walks by. The fear for ones life needs, I believe, to be reasonable in the circumstance.
As to your statement that the filing of the charges demonstrates a belief that Zimmerman is lying about the facts; I disagree. I think it's entirely possible that the police & the district attorney believed Zimmerman's story, and that the "special prosecutor" was assigned with the express instruction to file some charge.
And HERE is where you get into very muddy water. You cannot prove that the prosecutor filed bogus charges in this case simply because of politics. You cannot prove that "someone" gave her instructions to file charges regardless of what she found. That is all just speculation on your part.
The fact is that the State of Florida has filed 2nd degree murder charges against Zimmerman. That, in fact, means that prosecutor believes she has evidence to prove that charge. Prosecutors get into huge trouble for filing charges against a defendant if they do not believe they have sufficient evidence to win the case. So, unless you can prove that the charges were simply politically motivated, you have to take it at face value. AFTER the trial, after you see all the evidence they State has, then it would be appropriate to say that the State didn't have enough evidence to prove the case, but still, it's a reach to try to prove that the charges were filed for political reasons alone. At this point, YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ALL OF THE STATE'S EVIDENCE. They haven't released everything yet.
Again, we don't know that.
How many burglaries DIDN'T happen,as a result of the neighborhood watch? We'll never know. Maybe none. But perhaps several.
We know that ONE guest was not safer.
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.
