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.
No, it is not. There is nothing illegal about getting out of one's car.
BOTH TM and Z had the legal right to be where they were that night.
TM committed the ultimately fatal error of choosing to escalate the encounter to violence by battering Z. Self-defense is legally permissible. TM chose his own fate. The jury concurred.
Getting out of your car, fine. Getting out of your car to play police officer, not ok
So if I get all the experts on page #6 right, being at a disadvantage in a simple fight is a sufficient ground for a murder for as long as you can claim "fear"? This rationale would not fly in the 19th (or even 20th) century America, but times are definitely changing. So, if disproportionate to a threat deadly use of force is allowed as long as you can claim "fear" why you all discard possible fears of Travyon?
Getting out of your car, fine. Getting out of your car to play police officer, not ok
There is no evidence whatsoever that Z impersonated a police officer that night.
As I said, BOTH TM and Z had the legal right to be where they were that night.
TM committed the ultimately fatal error of choosing to escalate the encounter to violence by battering Z. Self-defense is legally permissible. TM chose his own fate. The jury concurred.
1. You being at a disadvantage in a simple fight is sufficient reason to kill your opponent using a deadly weapon? Yes/No?
2. You being at a disadvantage is a simple fight you started is sufficient reason to kill your opponent using a deadly weapon? Yes/No?
1. Yes. The law on this is super clear.
2. This is not a true statement as no evidence showed that Zimmerman started the fight. Please note that "started the fight", you must make the first move like throwing the first punch.
On the other hand, Florida law does allow the person who started fight to use deadly weapon when he's losing the fight and making reasonable effort to quit the fight but couldn't and now in fear of his life.
You being at a disadvantage is a simple fight you started is sufficient reason to kill your opponent using a deadly weapon? Yes/No?
There is no evidence that Z started a fight. TM had no fight injuries whatsoever, except those consistent with battering another.
The forensic evidence showed that Z shot TM in legally permissible self-defense while TM was straddling Z and battering Z. The jury concurred, hence the acquittal.
This is not a true statement as no evidence showed that Zimmerman started the fight. Please note that "started the fight", you must make the first move like throwing the first punch.
On the other hand, Florida law does allow the person who started fight to use deadly weapon when he's losing the fight and making reasonable effort to quit the fight.
Does Florida law specify the length of a fight? Is 40 seconds long enough to decide you are losing a fight, a yell for help twice, and shoot?
There is no evidence that Z started a fight. TM had no fight injuries whatsoever, except those consistent with battering another.
The forensic evidence showed that Z shot TM in legally permissible self-defense while TM was straddling Z and battering Z. The jury concurred, hence the acquittal.
To sum it up, the law is on the side of the guys with a gun, since dead people don't talk to tell their stories about them frantically trying to prevent a guy from pulling a gun out, for example. OK. Zimmerman had "injuries" a third grader would be ashamed to mention back in the days men were men and not armed fat puss.
This whole issue wasn't about Zimmerman's or Martin's fears, it was about 2 people being in the wrong place at the wrong time and race was the center of it. Martin was physically larger than Zimmerman and Martin's demeanor made Zimmerman suspicious given the facts that there were burglaries in the community, besides, he had no way of knowing that Martin was a teen-ager on his way home, and obviously, Martin had no fear of Zimmerman since the situation escalated to the physical confrontation and the eventual shooting of Martin, but again, Zimmerman had to do what any normal person would have done to defend himself. Had this been a confrontation between 2 black persons, or 2 Caucasians, which happens everyday, the case would not have gotten the attention it got.
Your logic is extremely faulty.
-Zimmerman PUT himself at the wrong place at the wrong time, Trayvon did not.
-While Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman, he was lanky. Zimmerman weighed more. It would seem Zimmerman was the stockier/beefier one in this scenario.
-While Trayvon may have appeared suspicious to Zimmerman, it is also VERY likely that Zimmerman was suspicious to Trayvon (watching him from car, getting out of car to follow him, etc).
-While Zimmerman didn't know if Trayvon was a neighborhood kid or potential burglar, Trayvon also didn't know if Zimmerman was a neighbor or a potential robber/murderer.
-There is ZERO proof that Trayvon didn't fear Zimmerman.
-Yes, the situation escalated to violence, but none of us know how this all started. To speculate is foolhardy.
-I think the case got attention because of the inaction of the Sanford PD. Had they arrested Zimmerman and charged him accordingly, this case would have stayed local.
So if I get all the experts on page #6 right, being at a disadvantage in a simple fight is a sufficient ground for a murder for as long as you can claim "fear"? This rationale would not fly in the 19th (or even 20th) century America, but times are definitely changing. So, if disproportionate to a threat deadly use of force is allowed as long as you can claim "fear" why you all discard possible fears of Travyon? Or one should never fear a guy who follows you, a guy who gets in a verbal argument with you, a guy who would indicate that he's a gun and he would shoot your brain out, a guy who reaches under his jacket to pull an alleged gun.
Seems you all lack consistency in application of your self-defense principles. It seems in the world where a murder in the course 40 seconds fight is justified if you can claim "fear", attacking a suspicious person with a gun should be triple- justified.
There has to be a clear advantage. Although, TM was in much better shape and much more athletic than Z, had they squared off in a fist fight, that was not enough advantage to justify the use of deadly force. When TM was on top of Z and continued the beating, then the advantage escalated. This is covered in the video I linked to in an earlier post.
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.
