Trayvon Martin Case: Will Zimmerman be convicted? (interviews, legal, attorney)
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.
You've been followed before. But you weren't 100% sure. So you run to see if the follower runs.
If he does, he's chasing you.
Do you perceive being chased by a stranger as dangerous?
Do you perceive it as provocation to keep running, and possibly hide?
If you feel forced to do these things, are you being assaulted just because your fears have been activated by a stranger-chase?
I sure do.
To me, at the very least, it is intimidation, as the distance gap closes, it becomes, more and more, assault.
This type of situation causes heart attacks with some people.
This would be manslaughter. (Personslaughter)
So, if I have this straight, you are justifying physical attacks based on proximity to other people while walking. This idea should go over well in the inner cities. I see the murder rate dropping sharply, thanks to your idea. It's truly brilliant.
You could, and I would call the cops. Or knock on a door and request someone do the same. I wouldn't attack and beat you up, though, because that would be very illegal and I could get seriously hurt.
Do you think O'Mara will try to prove self defense without putting Zimmerman on the stand......can you think of any way they could effectively prove self defense without Zimmerman testifying? Because, IMO, Zimmerman would be a disaster on the witness stand. He's no Jodi Arias.
I was thinking about that after you reminded us of the affirmative defense issue and frankly I can't imagine how they can present a defense without Zimmerman testifying.
I suppose they can use police testimony of what Zimmerman's told them. I wouldn't be surprise if O'Mara argues that the initial refusal of the state's attorney charge Zimmerman, and that fact that only public pressure prompted the prosecution in the first place is enough to cast doubt but I also have to think that Zimmerman has to tell his story. Who else can explain the key element in this case, how Zimmerman perceived the threat against him and how that perception lead him to believe that he has no other reasonable choice that to use deadly force.
I just don't see, at this point, how Zimmerman cannot take the stand.
lol. I'm pretty sure the law doesn't say that to defend yourself with deadly force, you must first be beaten into a near coma.
But thats what Zimmerman claimed. He knew very well that he couldn't get by just saying that he was pushed or punched in the nose or face a time or two by Martin.. Therefore, the claim that Martin hit him 25-30 times and bashed his head against the concrete a dozen times. And none of that happened.
And thats what the detective called him on. The detective had seen fights and brawls before. He knew Zimmerman was lying.
I'd bet that there will be a couple of people on the jury who have played sports seriously and/or have served in the military. And know what fighting injuries look like. I've done both and knew immediately that Zimmerman hadn't been in much of a fight at all when I saw the police video of him getting out of the police car. If he'd have been as seriously injured as he claimed he'd have been in the hospital not at the police station.
Zimmerman wouldn't go to the hospital nor would he see a doctor the next day. He knew his lies would be immediately obvious.
GZ was not an officer of the law! If GZ didn't have to obey an order from an employee of the police department, why would TM have to yield to GZ's "authority"?
The claim of the first bolded sentence is wrong. The physical confrontation, the only confrontation that matters in a murder trial, began when Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence for Zimmerman attacking Martin first.
If a man catches another man screwing his wife, the cuckold goes to jail if he attacks or murders that man. Is following someone worse than screwing another man's wife? Why would Trayvon get a pass to physically attack Zimmerman just because he was following him? The answer is that he wouldn't and won't. The only people that wish him to are irrational, racially motivated and hate filled because they want to see the non-black guy get prosecuted for killing a black guy, no matter what the reason.
The conclusion of the second bolded sentence is wrong. The events turned violent because Martin physically attacked Zimmerman. You can't blame a physical attack on someone who did not initiate nor sustain the attack. Though, he ended it.
The third bolded sentence proves my point and fully contradicts your previous claim.
The state "believes" that there was enough racially motivated public outcry for it to be too politically risky not to attempt to convict Zimmerman. There is no chance that it will be proven that Zimmerman initiated a physical attack. The evidence doesn't exist (if it does, point me to it), but the evidence for Martin initiating a physical confrontation does exist.
This is what proves the case for the defense, and it's all they need. Everything else is politics, and this picture proves that irrational ramblings of the Zimmerman hate club:
Zimmerman didn't receive these wounds after he shot Martin. He received them before. There were no bruises on Zimmerman's hands but there were on Martin's. The last refuge of the Zimmerman haters will be wild conspiracy theory, for which there is zero evidence, that Zimmerman somehow inflicted these wounds himself. We've already seen it in this thread, and this headshot is mostly avoided in discussion because it's the nail in the coffin of the prosecutions case. But here it is. It really is, together with the other supporting evidence of a Martin initiated physical attack, the definitive conclusion to all rational discussion about who was guilty of what.
This has been said over and over, but the Trayvonistas don't get it. You're wasting your keystrokes.
t
This has been said over and over, but the Trayvonistas don't get it. You're wasting your keystrokes.
And what Zimmerman's supporters adamantly refuse to recognize is what Florida statute lays out;
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Florida case law does not limit provocation to throwing the first punch, a verbal argument has been considered provocation as well as following a person.
If you were paying enough attention to notice my error of writing Martin instead of Zimmerman you would think that you would have noticed that the shooting occurred at the second part of their interaction. You refuse to acknowledge that Martin that both parties mutually raised the suspicions of each other but only one party chose to avoid further contact, and it wasn't Zimmerman.
You also refuse to acknowledge Detective Chris Serino conclusion that Zimmerman did everything except attempt to allay Martin's justifiable suspicions and concerns.
You refuse to acknowledge Zimmerman's own statement that when verbally confronted by Martin that he avoided every opportunity to defuse the confrontation, that he initiated and provoked.
There is no legal justification for fighting words being a legitimate cause of any physical confrontation. I can't believe that adults don't get that in this day and age. It's true. Welcome to civilized society.
As far as I know from the avalanche of media coverage, Florida has a stand your ground law. No duty to retreat. Correct me if I'm wrong. Even if this was the case (a duty to retreat), Zimmerman was obviously being beaten while on his back and so no retreat was possible.
Disagree. Soon we'll all see what the attorneys think about all these things and what evidence they have to support their cases. Would you like to give us your complete analysis of the laws and enlighten us all?
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.
!
Because, IMO, Zimmerman would be a disaster on the witness stand. He's no Jodi Arias.
