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.
Self defense is not an option to an aggressor, which Zimmerman clearly was. You can't just pick a fight with someone and then claim defense when they respond.
You'll disagree, but I think your conclusion that gz was the aggressor and picked a fight is debateable.
You consider following someone or trying to figure out where he's going is being the aggressor. Debateable.
Besides that, your statement that self defense is not an option for an aggressor is wrong, at least under Fl. law.
You'll disagree, but I think your conclusion that gz was the aggressor and picked a fight is debateable.
You consider following someone or trying to figure out where he's going is being the aggressor. Debateable.
Sure, if GZ was just 'following' someone, but we know that's not the case. There are those recorded 911 calls after all. It's pretty simple: GZ chased a stranger in the dark with a loaded gun, which was technically legal. He had the right to do it, I suppose, but he also had the legal responsibility to act with care. His state of mind going into that encounter is pretty obvious to any casual observer listening to the calls.
Blocking someone's path home is not just 'following' either. All Zimmerman had to do was to observe Martin's whereabouts. Zimmerman's conduct of pursuit and impeding his path surely initiated the initial encounter. After that, it's Zimmerman's job to keep a cool head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Besides that, your statement that self defense is not an option for an aggressor is wrong, at least under Fl. law.
No, it's not wrong. You haven't even read the law if you actually believe that, because the law clearly states that an aggressor cannot then become the victim - the law says that.
Zimmerman could have used force to defend himself against the consequences of his own aggression, but that force could only have been that which was needed to defend himself against Martin's own defense. The question that needs to be answered is whether Martin used too much force and whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself. That is something that facts will reveal and a jury will decide.
Sure, if GZ was just 'following' someone, but we know that's not the case. There are those recorded 911 calls after all. It's pretty simple: GZ chased a stranger in the dark with a loaded gun, which was technically legal. He had the right to do it, I suppose, but he also had the legal responsibility to act with care. His state of mind going into that encounter is pretty obvious to any casual observer listening to the calls.
Blocking someone's path home is not just 'following' either. All Zimmerman had to do was to observe Martin's whereabouts. Zimmerman's conduct of pursuit and impeding his path surely initiated the initial encounter. After that, it's Zimmerman's job to keep a cool head.
No, it's not wrong. You haven't even read the law if you actually believe that, because the law clearly states that an aggressor cannot then become the victim - the law says that.
Zimmerman could have used force to defend himself against the consequences of his own aggression, but that force could only have been that which was needed to defend himself against Martin's own defense. The question that needs to be answered is whether Martin used too much force and whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to defend himself. That is something that facts will reveal and a jury will decide.
You realize you contradict yourself. First you say 'the law clearly states that an aggressor cannot then become the victim.' Then you name conditions when the aggressor Can become the victim and use self defense. That's what I said.
I don't know where you come up with the claim that gz impeded or blocked tm's path home. Thin air ?
Even accepting everything you say is 'fact,' which it's not, it still leaves whether someone is obligated to keep a 'cool head' after being knocked to the ground with the assailant on top of you [which you probably don't believe happened].
You realize you contradict yourself. First you say 'the law clearly states that an aggressor cannot then become the victim.' Then you name conditions when the aggressor Can become the victim and use self defense. That's what I said.
I don't know where you come up with the claim that gz impeded or blocked tm's path home. Thin air ?
Even accepting everything you say is 'fact,' which it's not, it still leaves whether someone is obligated to keep a 'cool head' after being knocked to the ground with the assailant on top of you [which you probably don't believe happened].
WHAT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR is that George Zimmerman blatantly assaulted Trayvon Martin's fists with his nose, head, and then had the audacity to not lay down and take a beating from the bottom position.
The first question I have about the legal analysis you quoted is that the link indicates it was written or posted May 27th, 2012. Discovery was not completed by that time. So how could this attorney have read all the discovery in the court file back at that time and be certain that there have not been changes in testimony of witnesses and more evidence turned over since then?? I'm sure the defense was NOT taking depositions back in May of this year. In fact, it appears that the defense is still taking depositions in this case. So his analysis was based on ONLY what he could have read which was either in the court file or information published by the media by May 27th of 2012. That was incomplete information at that time. There is certainly more evidence and statements in the court file in this case now.
From your link:
__________________________________________________ _________________________________ 'George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 at 08:05:00 AM EST'
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
The problem I see with the legal analysis you quoted is IF they put Zimmerman on the stand to testify ABOUT ANYTHING, that is going to open him up for cross examination and the State will use everything they've got to impeached him with his the many conflicting statements he has made and destroy his credibility. I am assuming that some of those are sworn statements given by Zimmerman to law enforcement PLUS his many statements on his web site and on national TV. Certainly at this point, Zimmerman has not given anyone a deposition, so technically there is no testimony by Zimmerman at this time. Only his statements to police and to the media, etc.
Are you aware that there was no DNA from Martin found on Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him when he fired the gun.......not one tiny drop of blood fell from Martin's body onto Zimmerman, and there was no DNA from Martin on the gun Zimmerman used to shoot him at very close range?
I think there may just be enough circumstantial evidence to possibly get a conviction in this case.
IMO, Martin (or anyone else) had every reason to be fearful of Zimmerman because Zimmerman was clearly following him in his car, then on foot, not just taking the same route as Martin to get to the condo next door to where Martin was visiting or something; ultimately Zimmerman killed him which demonstrates to me that Martin's fear was reasonable and justified. Zimmerman had a gun; Martin did not.
None of the salient facts of the case have changed.
All that matters legally is whether Trayvon Martin's physical attack on him caused him to reasonably believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Zimmerman's testimony, which is supported by proof of his injuries and witnesses observing the struggle, is that Martin broke his nose and banged his head against cement. He tried to get up and couldn't. Using an objective standard, a reasonable person in that situation would fear imminent serious bodily injury if he didn't react with force.
The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him. Zimmerman's profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin's attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin's use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force. Even if it could be construed to be provocation for using force, all it means is Zimmerman had to attempt reasonable means to extricate himself before using deadly force in response. W-6's steadfast insistence that Zimmerman was struggling to get up and out from under Trayvon, right before the shot went off, fulfills that requirement. Zimmerman will say the same. And no witnesses saw anything different.
Self defense is not an option to an aggressor, which Zimmerman clearly was. You can't just pick a fight with someone and then claim defense when they respond.
It is not clear at all, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. There is no proof that George picked a fight. All of the facts and eye witness statements point to Treyvon being the aggressor.
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.
