Case closed, Zimmerman's a gonner

[Esmeralda]

Except!

You can't just start BEATING someone because you SUSPECT they are a weirdo.

Martin had every right to confront Zimmerman.

Martin: "You have a problem..."

Zimmerman: "No."

Totally cool and well within his rights.

Martin: "Well you do now!"

Still 100% within his rights.

Next, Martin exceeds his rights by punching Zimmerman in the face.

Your rights END at the tip of my nose.

.
.
..
Now, I know what you are going to say...this is Zimmerman's account of the incident.

And that is fair...but it is the only one the jury is going to hear...there is no rebuttal testimony.

That's it.

You may have a alternate supposition, but it's just a guess not supported by a single shred of evidence.

Therefore, it is irrelevant.

Court proceedings are about what you can prove, not what you suspect.

It is an account that is total BS and right out of a stupid B movie dialogue. The jury is not going to believe that dialogue. As well, Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to confront with force someone he thought was bent on harming him. He would have no other reason to know or assume why some guy was following and chasing him.

No, he doesn't.

In fact, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Please, provide a single example to back this up.

That anyone has a right to confront someone with force based on the BELIEF of harm.

I won't hold my breath.

It is in the Florida statue on self defense law which is posted in this thread more than once and can be easily found on the internet. Read it. If someone appears to pose a threat to your safety or someone elses, or appears to be about to commit a felonious act, you have the legal right to use force, not deadly force but force, to confront and stop them before they hurt you.

For example, if you are walking alone at night in a lonely placea and someone is stalking you, even breaking into a run when you start to run away, you have the right to confront them with force and not wait helplessly until they attack you. Read the law. Statute 776.012

 

[Truthseeker420]

Height and weight are very poor measures of hand to hand combat superiority.

Ever when I was at the height of physical fitness, training every day, maxing my P.T. tests in the Army (82 sit-ups in two minute, 91 pushups in two minutes and running two miles in 10 minutes 52 seconds) I was bested in hand to hand by tall wiry guys and shorter guys. At the time I was 5' 11" and 190 lbs.

You learn quite quickly not the judge the book by it's cover.

And yet that is what those are doing who assume Zimmerman was out of shape and over weight.

The facts are that Martin had Zimmerman down. Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And Martin was beating Zimmerman.

Whether Zimmerman was in shape or out of shape is irrelevant.

That Martin was tall and wiry is irrelevant.

The facts are all that matter.

no, that is wrong.

 

[testarosa]

If the defense has 2 eyewitnesses to say it was Z yelling help, TM's own dad said it wasnt his son, and Z was on the bottom, as witness statements say, and the back of his head is banged up and nose broken, it was self defense and none of this other stuff matters. Self defense case closed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lol.

Lol.

 

[Truthseeker420]

lol.

lol.

lmao

 

[Ernie S.]

How many men are a 158 pounds? Zimmerman was what 240+ lbs.

I weigh 145.
Zimmerman was 5'7" and 185 at booking. Hardly the buff young man that Martin was.

guess I'm going to stop calling you "Big Ern"

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zimmerman's height is shown as 5′8″ (1.73 m); and his weight at 200 lb (91 kg) on the Sanford Police Department Offense Report for February 26, 2012, the night of the shooting

He wasn't "booked" until there was an outcry about the fact that he was only "taken in for questioning" on the night of the shooting and released.

The police report was an estimate. I'll go with the weigh in at booking.

ETA:
Estimates are not all that accurate. The police were actually closer than Treyvon's own parents.

The initial police report from the night of the shooting lists Martin's height as 6'0" (1.83 m) and weight as 160 lb (73 kg).[15][39]Zimmerman estimated Martin's height at 5'11" to 6'2" on the night of the shooting.[40] The morning after the shooting, an autopsy found that Martin's body was 5'11" (1.80 m) long and weighed 158 lb (72 kg).[41][42] Other values for Martin's height of 6'2" (1.88 m) and 6'3" (1.91 m), and weight of no more than 150 lb (68 kg), were reported as being given by Martin's family.

(From your source)

 

[TemplarKormac]

lol.

lol.

lmao

rofl

 

[Esmeralda]

lol.

lol.

lmao

The return of true Socratic dialogue. It's very impressive.

 

[Missourian]

It is an account that is total BS and right out of a stupid B movie dialogue. The jury is not going to believe that dialogue. As well, Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to confront with force someone he thought was bent on harming him. He would have no other reason to know or assume why some guy was following and chasing him.

No, he doesn't.

In fact, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Please, provide a single example to back this up.

That anyone has a right to confront someone with force based on the BELIEF of harm.

I won't hold my breath.

It is in the Florida statue on self defense law which is posted in this thread more than once and can be easily found on the internet. Read it. If someone appears to pose a threat to your safety or someone elses, or appears to be about to commit a felonious act, you have the legal right to use force, not deadly force but force, to confront and stop them before they hurt you.

For example, if you are walking alone at night in a lonely placea and someone is stalking you, even breaking into a run when you start to run away, you have the right to confront them with force and not wait helplessly until they attack you. Read the law. Statute 776.012

[SIZE=-1]A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
.
.
..

.
[/SIZE]​

Even if you construe that to mean what you say...and I don't think it does...but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

Did you read the exception?
.
..
.

.

[SIZE=-1]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.
.
.
.

..
[/SIZE]​

Oops...Zimmerman still innocent.

Even if Zimmerman provoked the attack, if the attack is so forceful that there is a fear of great bodily harm or death and no possibility of escape...lethal force is still justified.

 

[Ernie S.]

So he should be convicted because he put on 50 pounds? I think he should sue the judicial system for putting him in jail.

 

[Esmeralda]

No, he doesn't.

In fact, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Please, provide a single example to back this up.

That anyone has a right to confront someone with force based on the BELIEF of harm.

I won't hold my breath.

It is in the Florida statue on self defense law which is posted in this thread more than once and can be easily found on the internet. Read it. If someone appears to pose a threat to your safety or someone elses, or appears to be about to commit a felonious act, you have the legal right to use force, not deadly force but force, to confront and stop them before they hurt you.

For example, if you are walking alone at night in a lonely placea and someone is stalking you, even breaking into a run when you start to run away, you have the right to confront them with force and not wait helplessly until they attack you. Read the law. Statute 776.012

[SIZE=-1]A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
[/SIZE]​

Even if you construe that to mean what you say...and I don't think it does...but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

Did you read the exception?

[SIZE=-1]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.

[/SIZE]​

Oops...Zimmerman still innocent.

Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was walking innocently home from the store. He was not commiting a crime, had not commited a crime. He did not provoke anything. The statute you posted has nothing to do with this situation. Innocent people walking alone at night do not deserve to be followed, stalked or chased. Period. However, an innocent person walking alone at night who is followed, stalked and chased by a stranger has every reason to feel threatened and in imminent danger of harm. The jury will read statute 776.012 and realize, if Trayvon hit Zimmerman, he had every right to do so to protect himself from what appeared to be a malicious stranger. One thing about this jury being all female, women know what it feels like to be in the kind of situation Trayvon was in, to be walking in a deserted place and worry about someone following you with the intent of harming you. They will identify with that situation and most likely feel, if they had the physical strength to confront the person who appears to be a threat, they would so so. Zimmerman didn't just make a mistake in judgment, he murdered an unarmed, innocent individual walking home from the store minding his own business. Zimmerman needs to pay for that. IMO he took a life and should pay with his own (life in prison), but I will have to settle for 2nd degree murder.

 

[Missourian]

It is in the Florida statue on self defense law which is posted in this thread more than once and can be easily found on the internet. Read it. If someone appears to pose a threat to your safety or someone elses, or appears to be about to commit a felonious act, you have the legal right to use force, not deadly force but force, to confront and stop them before they hurt you.

For example, if you are walking alone at night in a lonely placea and someone is stalking you, even breaking into a run when you start to run away, you have the right to confront them with force and not wait helplessly until they attack you. Read the law. Statute 776.012

[SIZE=-1]A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
[/SIZE]​

Even if you construe that to mean what you say...and I don't think it does...but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

Did you read the exception?

[SIZE=-1]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.

[/SIZE]​

Oops...Zimmerman still innocent.

Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was walking innocently home from the store. He was not commiting a crime. He did not provoke anything. The statute you posted has nothing to do with this situation. Innocent people walking alone at night do not deserved to be followed, stalking or chased. Period. However, an innocent person walking alone at night who is followed, stalked and chased by a stranger has every reason to feel threatened and in imminent danger of harm.

Not so...

According to the statute...Even if Zimmerman provoked the attack, if the attack is so forceful that there is a fear of great bodily harm or death and no possibility of escape...lethal force is still justified.

No matter how you slice it, Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The facts are that Martin had Zimmerman down. Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And Martin was beating Zimmerman.

Whether Zimmerman was in shape or out of shape is irrelevant.

That Martin was tall and wiry is irrelevant.

The facts are all that matter.

The fact is that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, it's in the audio transcript. Or did you forget that minor fact?

IF this stupid motherfucking idiot Zimmerman had OBEYED the POLICE, everybody would be alive today. Nobody would be in jail and certainly NOBODY WOULD BE DEAD.

What part of fucking reality goes past your head at the speed of a bullet (a bullet that was NOT supposed to be carried by Zimmerman in the first place?) The HOA specifically forbade their neighborhood watch volunteers to carry arms. Zimmerman didn't listen to the rules their either. THAT'S THE FACTS.

 

[Missourian]

The facts are that Martin had Zimmerman down. Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And Martin was beating Zimmerman.

Whether Zimmerman was in shape or out of shape is irrelevant.

That Martin was tall and wiry is irrelevant.

The facts are all that matter.

The fact is that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, it's in the audio transcript. Or did you forget that minor fact?

IF this stupid motherfucking idiot Zimmerman had OBEYED the POLICE, everybody would be alive today. Nobody would be in jail and certainly NOBODY WOULD BE DEAD.

What part of fucking reality goes past your head at the speed of a bullet that was NOT supposed to be carried by Zimmerman in the first place? THe HOA specifically forbade their neighborhood watch volunteers to carry arms. THAT'S THE FACTS.

No, he didn't...he said "we don't NEED you to do that."

That is a far cry from "don't follow him."

And THAT, my friend, is a fact.

 

[Esmeralda]

[SIZE=-1]A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
[/SIZE]​

Even if you construe that to mean what you say...and I don't think it does...but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

Did you read the exception?

[SIZE=-1]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.

[/SIZE]​

Oops...Zimmerman still innocent.

Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was walking innocently home from the store. He was not commiting a crime. He did not provoke anything. The statute you posted has nothing to do with this situation. Innocent people walking alone at night do not deserved to be followed, stalking or chased. Period. However, an innocent person walking alone at night who is followed, stalked and chased by a stranger has every reason to feel threatened and in imminent danger of harm.

Not so...

According to the statute...Even if Zimmerman provoked the attack, if the attack is so forceful that there is a fear of great bodily harm or death and no possibility of escape...lethal force is still justified.

No matter how you slice it, Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself.

But the fight was not deadly. Zimmerman was not in fear of great bodily harm or imminent death. He was barely injured, had a bloody nose, a black eye and some scrapes to his head. It was no more than a school yard fist fight. Deadly force was not justified.

 

[Missourian]

It is in the Florida statue on self defense law which is posted in this thread more than once and can be easily found on the internet. Read it. If someone appears to pose a threat to your safety or someone elses, or appears to be about to commit a felonious act, you have the legal right to use force, not deadly force but force, to confront and stop them before they hurt you.

For example, if you are walking alone at night in a lonely placea and someone is stalking you, even breaking into a run when you start to run away, you have the right to confront them with force and not wait helplessly until they attack you. Read the law. Statute 776.012

I have to admit...I find this line of reasoning intriguing.

I would have bet money that this wouldn't be upheld, that a person could never legally attack another because they "felt threatened".

A preemptive strike, so to speak.

I'm going to do some research on this this evening...I have work I have to do this afternoon.

Maybe @Avatar4321, @C_Clayton_Jones, @George Costanza and @jillian have some insights...

 

[Truthseeker420]

lol.

lmao

rofl

roflmao

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The facts are that Martin had Zimmerman down. Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And Martin was beating Zimmerman.

Whether Zimmerman was in shape or out of shape is irrelevant.

That Martin was tall and wiry is irrelevant.

The facts are all that matter.

The fact is that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, it's in the audio transcript. Or did you forget that minor fact?

IF this stupid motherfucking idiot Zimmerman had OBEYED the POLICE, everybody would be alive today. Nobody would be in jail and certainly NOBODY WOULD BE DEAD.

What part of fucking reality goes past your head at the speed of a bullet that was NOT supposed to be carried by Zimmerman in the first place? THe HOA specifically forbade their neighborhood watch volunteers to carry arms. THAT'S THE FACTS.

No, he didn't...he said "we don't NEED you to do that."

That is a far cry from "don't follow him."

And THAT, my friend, is a fact.

So what did the dispatcher mean? Did he say, "Please continue to follow him until the officers arrive?"
No.

Did he say, "Please confront him and retain him until an officer arrives"?
No.

I'm waiting for your interpretation, because you are distorting the facts.

Oh and while you are at it, please refute that the HOA said it was against their rules for volunteers to carry weapons.

I'll be waiting right here for your factual answer.

Oh, wait....I got it for you, Einstein:
Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

 

[Papageorgio]

Height and weight are very poor measures of hand to hand combat superiority.

Ever when I was at the height of physical fitness, training every day, maxing my P.T. tests in the Army (82 sit-ups in two minute, 91 pushups in two minutes and running two miles in 10 minutes 52 seconds) I was bested in hand to hand by tall wiry guys and shorter guys. At the time I was 5' 11" and 190 lbs.

You learn quite quickly not the judge the book by it's cover.

And yet that is what those are doing who assume Zimmerman was out of shape and over weight.

Well, perhaps guilt is making him eat like a fat ass now?

So you judge him guilty, then call him names. Got to love you tolerant liberals, full of justice and kindness.

 

[Missourian]

Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was walking innocently home from the store. He was not commiting a crime. He did not provoke anything. The statute you posted has nothing to do with this situation. Innocent people walking alone at night do not deserved to be followed, stalking or chased. Period. However, an innocent person walking alone at night who is followed, stalked and chased by a stranger has every reason to feel threatened and in imminent danger of harm.

Not so...

According to the statute...Even if Zimmerman provoked the attack, if the attack is so forceful that there is a fear of great bodily harm or death and no possibility of escape...lethal force is still justified.

No matter how you slice it, Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself.

But the fight was not deadly. Zimmerman was not in fear of great bodily harm or imminent death. He was barely injured, had a bloody nose, a black eye and some scrapes to his head. It was no more than a school yard fist fight. Deadly force was not justified.

That's going to be the crux of the deliberations.

It didn't have to actually be deadly...Zimmerman only had to have a reasonably FEAR that it was deadly or would produce severe bodily harm.

How do you prove a negative?

How can the prosecution present evidence that Zimmerman was NOT in fear of death or severe bodily harm.

If the defense proves that Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head against a solid object...it's over.

That is surefire fear of severe bodily harm in anyone's book.