George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[MacTheKnife]

It doesn't matter..........Zimmerman did not physically assault martin.......so what you just posted doesn't matter. In the trial, the fake witness told the court that martin had lost Zimmerman among the condo units......he was free and clear...he went back and attacked Zimmerman....

It isn't against the law to follow someone, and zimmerman was returning to his car when martin violently attacked him......

This is all on martin....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Are you really this dumb. It doesn't matter who was running or where they ran......martin circled back and attacked martin.

zimmerman stopped looking for martin and was going back to his SUV to wait for the police....since he called 911 and asked for the police...you do understand that...right? martin told his friend on the phone that he lost zimmerman in the condo complex....couldn't see him.....he went back and attacked zimmerman.....

A witness saw martin on top of zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.........and testified to this in court....

You can't make things up when there is an actual trial with actual witnesses and evidence that show you don't know what you are talking about....

You don't know what you are talking about....

It most definitely does matter who was running, because it is clear Zimmerman did NOT go back towards his SUV.
If he had, then the fight would not have happened nearly 2 blocks away, as it did.

And it is impossible for Martin to have gone back, because he was stopped as he made the cellphone call, and the call got interrupted by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

And no, there was no witness who said they saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
There were 2 witnesses, but it was too dark and far away for any sort of details like that.
{...
John Good told the jury today that he yelled "stop" at both men shortly after realizing that what he at first assumed to be a dog attack was actually two men grappling on the ground.
"I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious," said Good.
Good testified that he saw what he believed to be Martin on top of Zimmerman.
...
Good testified that he did not see Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
...}
{...
Jonathan Manalo, who also lived near the shooting scene, testified today that Zimmerman told him just moments after Martin was killed to call his wife and say "Just tell her I shot someone."
Manalo did not see the confrontation between Zimmerman and the unarmed teenager, but walked outside of his home with a flashlight moments after hearing a gunshot.
He said Zimmerman looked like he had "got his butt beat," but was "speaking clearly."
...}

Not sure why you are focused on "running." We have zimmerman's 911 call, where he stated to the operator he was following martin, that he lost martin, then the operator tells him they didn't need him to follow martin he said okay and that he was heading back to his car to meet the police......

The point of running is that somehow Zimmerman and Martin got about 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV, after starting the 9/11 call at Zimmerman's SUV. That required a lot of time and movement if Zimmerman were just walking. But we know he was not because we hear him running in the audio of the call to the 9/11 operator.
To get 2 blocks away so quickly, Zimmerman has to continue running around the houses to cut off Martin, even after the 9/11 operator told him not to.

More nonsense......what the dispatcher heard was the wind blowing on the phone.


George Zimmerman prosecutors have proved his innocence, says lawyer

 

[MacTheKnife]

The fact is Martin deserved killing, a jury said so. So there was no stolen 25th birthday stolen in his case.

.

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

Exactly and another point....they claim Z was stalking trayvon with a gun.....common sense dictates that if Z had his gun out there would have been no fight.....In fact Z had even forgot he had his weapon with him whilst being pinned on the ground he felt it and thus then pulled it out and shot the thug....forensics back up the angle of the shot being upwards as in would have been the case of a person being pinned under another person.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It doesn't matter..........Zimmerman did not physically assault martin.......so what you just posted doesn't matter. In the trial, the fake witness told the court that martin had lost Zimmerman among the condo units......he was free and clear...he went back and attacked Zimmerman....

It isn't against the law to follow someone, and zimmerman was returning to his car when martin violently attacked him......

This is all on martin....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Are you really this dumb. It doesn't matter who was running or where they ran......martin circled back and attacked martin.

zimmerman stopped looking for martin and was going back to his SUV to wait for the police....since he called 911 and asked for the police...you do understand that...right? martin told his friend on the phone that he lost zimmerman in the condo complex....couldn't see him.....he went back and attacked zimmerman.....

A witness saw martin on top of zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.........and testified to this in court....

You can't make things up when there is an actual trial with actual witnesses and evidence that show you don't know what you are talking about....

You don't know what you are talking about....

It most definitely does matter who was running, because it is clear Zimmerman did NOT go back towards his SUV.
If he had, then the fight would not have happened nearly 2 blocks away, as it did.

And it is impossible for Martin to have gone back, because he was stopped as he made the cellphone call, and the call got interrupted by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

And no, there was no witness who said they saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
There were 2 witnesses, but it was too dark and far away for any sort of details like that.
{...
John Good told the jury today that he yelled "stop" at both men shortly after realizing that what he at first assumed to be a dog attack was actually two men grappling on the ground.
"I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious," said Good.
Good testified that he saw what he believed to be Martin on top of Zimmerman.
...
Good testified that he did not see Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
...}
{...
Jonathan Manalo, who also lived near the shooting scene, testified today that Zimmerman told him just moments after Martin was killed to call his wife and say "Just tell her I shot someone."
Manalo did not see the confrontation between Zimmerman and the unarmed teenager, but walked outside of his home with a flashlight moments after hearing a gunshot.
He said Zimmerman looked like he had "got his butt beat," but was "speaking clearly."
...}

Not sure why you are focused on "running." We have zimmerman's 911 call, where he stated to the operator he was following martin, that he lost martin, then the operator tells him they didn't need him to follow martin he said okay and that he was heading back to his car to meet the police......

The point of running is that somehow Zimmerman and Martin got about 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV, after starting the 9/11 call at Zimmerman's SUV. That required a lot of time and movement if Zimmerman were just walking. But we know he was not because we hear him running in the audio of the call to the 9/11 operator.
To get 2 blocks away so quickly, Zimmerman has to continue running around the houses to cut off Martin, even after the 9/11 operator told him not to.

Nonsense....just your imagination working overtime. No evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was running.

Justice for Zimmerman - American Renaissance

Trial evidence proves Zimmerman was innocent

 

[MacTheKnife]

All those on here using their imagination to conjure up a false narrative of this case should have watched the actual trial...you know where all the evidence is presented.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The fact is Martin deserved killing, a jury said so. So there was no stolen 25th birthday stolen in his case.

.

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

No, when 2 people of similar physical capability are rolling around on the ground in a fight, it is totally and completely illegal for one of them to pull a gun and shoot the other. That fits the charge of murder, and is always what the police thought as well.
Zimmerman was NOT at all in reasonable fear for his life, and even if he had been, he still can not use deadly force because he caused the confrontation to happen in the first place.

Only if Zimmerman attacked him. In this case, Zimmerman was attacked first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry.....you need to be updated...apparently the girl who testified on the stand was not the girl who was on the phone with martin....she was the girl's sister...who took her place on the stand.....that alone is enough for zimmerman to sue.....

And from that testimony, martin stated he lost zimmerman.........he could have simply gone to his father's condo......he circled back to attack zimmerman...he was the attacker, not zimmerman.....

And again...zimmerman had called the police....he was waiting for the police to show up......martin initiated the violence, not zimmerman.

Totally wrong.
Rachael Jeantel was Martin's girl friend, was the one on the call, and was the one who testified.
{...
Nineteen-year-old Rachel Jeantel holds some of the most critical information about the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet her delivery on the stand in Florida's Seminole County this week drew widespread criticism.

She was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a “train wreck.”

But the torrent of negative reaction across bar stools and Twitter became more telling than Ms. Jeantel’s simple testimony relating what she heard on the phone as she talked to Trayvon before the sound of a “thud” on wet grass and a disconnected line. Moments later, Trayvon, an unarmed black youth, was dead from a single bullet from a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol registered to George Zimmerman.
...}
Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

You need to actually do some reading before making mistakes like that.

Wrong, it just came out that her sister testified in her place.....and no, her testimony simply confirmed that zimmerman was no where near martin....that martin used a homophobic slur, and that he could have simply gone to his fathers condo........

You don't know what you are talking about....

I not only followed the case, but read the entire transcript at the time, and just read it again.
And no where in the trial did anyone testify that the phone call to Martin was with anyone but Rachael Jeantel, who testified.
And her testimony proved that Martin was not moving, and that it was Zimmerman who ran to get in front of Martin and cut him off
The fight happened very near the condo where Martin's father was visiting, so clearly Martin was trying to get home, and was NOT going towards Zimmerman's SUV. The body was found much closer to the home the Martins were staying at, and almost 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV.
Martin clearly could not have gone to the safety of the condo because Zimmerman got in front of him, blocking the way.

It has been alleged that the girl who testified is the half sister of the girl who was actually on the phone...if this is true, those prosecutors will likely face being disbarred.....and the judge could also be in trouble.

You don't know what you are talking about, the only witness to the fight stated martin was on top......we have the 911 call.....you have nothing but what you are making up in your head.

So since there has never been any testimony the 19 year old was not the one on the phone to Martin, why did you bring it up?

As for Martin being on top for the moment Good witnessed the fight, that is meaningless because he did not see who started it, or any deadly act by Martin that would have justified the use of deadly force in response, by Zimmerman.
Good saw just a brawl on the ground that Zimmerman appeared to be losing.
Not a justification for shooting.
The 9/11 call shows that Zimmerman disobeyed police orders, and ran after Martin even after being told not to.

The dispatcher didn't tell Zimmerman do to anything. He just advised Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't matter..........Zimmerman did not physically assault martin.......so what you just posted doesn't matter. In the trial, the fake witness told the court that martin had lost Zimmerman among the condo units......he was free and clear...he went back and attacked Zimmerman....

It isn't against the law to follow someone, and zimmerman was returning to his car when martin violently attacked him......

This is all on martin....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Are you really this dumb. It doesn't matter who was running or where they ran......martin circled back and attacked martin.

zimmerman stopped looking for martin and was going back to his SUV to wait for the police....since he called 911 and asked for the police...you do understand that...right? martin told his friend on the phone that he lost zimmerman in the condo complex....couldn't see him.....he went back and attacked zimmerman.....

A witness saw martin on top of zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.........and testified to this in court....

You can't make things up when there is an actual trial with actual witnesses and evidence that show you don't know what you are talking about....

You don't know what you are talking about....

It most definitely does matter who was running, because it is clear Zimmerman did NOT go back towards his SUV.
If he had, then the fight would not have happened nearly 2 blocks away, as it did.

And it is impossible for Martin to have gone back, because he was stopped as he made the cellphone call, and the call got interrupted by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

And no, there was no witness who said they saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
There were 2 witnesses, but it was too dark and far away for any sort of details like that.
{...
John Good told the jury today that he yelled "stop" at both men shortly after realizing that what he at first assumed to be a dog attack was actually two men grappling on the ground.
"I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious," said Good.
Good testified that he saw what he believed to be Martin on top of Zimmerman.
...
Good testified that he did not see Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
...}
{...
Jonathan Manalo, who also lived near the shooting scene, testified today that Zimmerman told him just moments after Martin was killed to call his wife and say "Just tell her I shot someone."
Manalo did not see the confrontation between Zimmerman and the unarmed teenager, but walked outside of his home with a flashlight moments after hearing a gunshot.
He said Zimmerman looked like he had "got his butt beat," but was "speaking clearly."
...}

You don't know what you are talking about.....martin violently attacked zimmerman.....

At Trial, Witness Says Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense

Under questioning by Zimmerman's lawyer Mark O'Mara today, Good confirmed some key parts of Zimmerman's version of events.

MARK O'MARA: The person who you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top. Correct?

GOOD: Correct.

O'MARA: And he was the one who was raining blows down on the person on the bottom, George Zimmerman. Right?

GOOD: That's what it looked like.

Since Zimmerman was bigger, older, and stronger, it is unlikely Martin would have held a superior position very long.
But it does not matter, because the use of deadly force is not legal in a hand to hand fight.

Wrong. Your attacker does not have to be armed in order to use deadly force against him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You cannot build a defamation case on assumptions. The law requires that the defamer published or uttered some purported factual statement about the aggrieved, that they knew to be false, with the express purpose of defaming him/her. None of that is met here.

One tweet reads, "How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?" That's not even a statement at all; it's a rhetorical question. And it mentions no names.

The other tweet reads, "“My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free,”

Again, no names other than the deceased. What case can a plaintiff possibly make there? That we should NOT end gun violence and racism and we should NOT build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free?

Rotsa ruck wit dat one. And even if they did make that case, it wasn't directed at anyone.

The fact is Martin deserved killing, a jury said so. So there was no stolen 25th birthday stolen in his case.

.

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Following somebody does not provoke an attack. It's legal to follow anybody you like unless they have a restraining order against you. The key words in our law is believe, and serious bodily harm.

If I am in a situation where I used deadly force, the only way that a prosecutor can charge me with anything is if he could prove what I believed at the time. Unless he can find a social media post that provides evidence I killed the guy for shit and giggles, it's nearly impossible to prove. Secondly, there is no legal definition of serious bodily harm. It's subjective. What is serious bodily harm? A broken arm? A broken nose? A broken fingernail? Again, all subjective.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How would Zimmerman know where Martin was? In the 911 call, he stated early on he lost Martin. And he quit running. Zimmerman continued his call for nearly a minute after he lost Martin. Martin, being very athletic could have ran round that place and been back at the starting point by the time Zimmerman got off the phone with police. But he stopped. Why???

The police and detectives checked out his story. Everything lines up.

It is still not known for sure where Trayvon ran off to....per his g/f she said he told her he was almost home....which was very close....if he were running he could have been home in less than a minute. So he probably did run home. As mentioned George had completely lost sight of him....had no idea where he was.

We have no idea what his girlfriend said or heard, because the pig that testified was not his girlfriend or the person he was talking to. The real girlfriend didn't want to get involved for some reason.

Where did you come up with that one?
Rachel Jeantel was Trayvon Martin's girl friend, was the one he called, and was the one who testified that the call from Martin got interrupted, most likely by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

While she was a terrible witness whom no one liked, it is clear from her testimony that Martin was not moving towards Zimmerman but away from him instead, and that it was Zimmerman who was doing all the running, and got infront of Martin, cutting him off from home.

Sorry.....you need to be updated...apparently the girl who testified on the stand was not the girl who was on the phone with martin....she was the girl's sister...who took her place on the stand.....that alone is enough for zimmerman to sue.....

And from that testimony, martin stated he lost zimmerman.........he could have simply gone to his father's condo......he circled back to attack zimmerman...he was the attacker, not zimmerman.....

And again...zimmerman had called the police....he was waiting for the police to show up......martin initiated the violence, not zimmerman.

Totally wrong.
Rachael Jeantel was Martin's girl friend, was the one on the call, and was the one who testified.
{...
Nineteen-year-old Rachel Jeantel holds some of the most critical information about the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet her delivery on the stand in Florida's Seminole County this week drew widespread criticism.

She was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a “train wreck.”

But the torrent of negative reaction across bar stools and Twitter became more telling than Ms. Jeantel’s simple testimony relating what she heard on the phone as she talked to Trayvon before the sound of a “thud” on wet grass and a disconnected line. Moments later, Trayvon, an unarmed black youth, was dead from a single bullet from a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol registered to George Zimmerman.
...}
Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

You need to actually do some reading before making mistakes like that.

I would say the same about you. She committed perjury which dismisses any credibility she could have had. Seemingly, she'll lie about anything.

https://nypost.com/2013/06/28/trayv...pposedly-wrote-to-his-mother-about-his-death/

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

256 million?

Where did he pull that number from? There is no way he can show damages even close to that even if he had a case...

Martin was a regular resident, spending about half his time there.
But we know Martin never made it home, could not have gotten any weapon, and was cut off and prevented from reaching his home, by Zimmerman.

You are making that all up. If you and I are standing in the same place, and I start running, there is no possible way you could walk anywhere to cut me off. Zimmerman was walking and Martin was running. He played on the football team in school. Clearly his athleticism was an advantage against Zimmerman.

Yep.......it never fails when these threads on Z start up the Negroes and liberal dumbasses who did not watch the trial have no clue as to all the evidence that was presented but let none of that prevent them from sounding off with their personal opinions based mainly on their imagination and stuff they may have heard down on the street corner waiting for a bus. hehheh so ridiculous


George Zimmerman prosecutors have proved his innocence, says lawyer

the bottom line is simply this....Trayvon caused his own death....he had sized up George(circled his truck) and thought he would be a easy victim and George would have been had he not been armed.

Had trayvon not been full of hatred(evidenced by a history of getting in fights) he would not have attacked George and would not have wound up like this>>>>>>>

That is all just a lie.
Everyone has testified that Zimmerman was the one following Martin, as Martin came back from the store with a bad of food.
Martin was not sizing up Zimmerman's SUV or doing anything at all suspicious.
Zimmerman said Martin was looking in windows in the call, but recanted that after the actual path of Martin was tracked by police.
It was raining, so Martin has not diverted from a direct path home.
We know Zimmerman was the aggressor, did the following, used racial slurs, and was so extreme that even the Neighborhood Watch would not let him join.

It doesn't matter..........Zimmerman did not physically assault martin.......so what you just posted doesn't matter. In the trial, the fake witness told the court that martin had lost Zimmerman among the condo units......he was free and clear...he went back and attacked Zimmerman....

It isn't against the law to follow someone, and zimmerman was returning to his car when martin violently attacked him......

This is all on martin....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Irrelevant. Zimmerman did not go directly back to his SUV. He continued walking to the front of the apartment to get an address of where he lost Martin for the police. After he got the address, he turned around and then started to walk back to his truck. By then, the phone conversation with the dispatcher had ended.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The wet back and knees are irrelevant, because we are not talking about what happened before the actual shooting.
The angle of the shot does not at all indicate it happened while Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
In fact, it is absolutely impossible for the shot to have happened when Martin was on his knees, on top of Zimmerman.
Because if that were the case, then Martin would still have been on his knees, only laying back.
But his was not.
The body of Martin was laying back on the grass with his legs outstretched.
So he had to be standing when killed.

No, his body landed on Zimmerman. He was face down. I forget now if he slid from underneath or he pushed Martin off of him.

A field trip that is not political is fine, but it is illegal to use students as political fodder since they can not say no.
It not only violates their political rights, but is child abuse for wasting the time they are supposed to be in school.
They can learn from a field trip, but not from a Right to Life rally.

All field trips have to have a signed permission from the parent(s) to go on field trips.

Martin's body was face up, so could not have been on top of Zimmerman when shot and killed.
And no, field trips do NOT ever require signed permission because schools have en loco parentis legal guardianship over students.
Public schools just usually get additional assurances for field trips because they want to be sure of the parent's wishes.
That is not the case at Covington because it is already a very politically oriented, private, school.

No, you do need permission from a parent. Trust me, I've been on many field trips in school. Each one required a parents signature. It was not a political school (there is really no such thing) it was a religious school. Christian religions are very against abortion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Martin was not sizing up Zimmerman's SUV or doing anything at all suspicious.
Zimmerman said Martin was looking in windows in the call, but recanted that after the actual path of Martin was tracked by police.

I don't know how you can say that and then claim you listened to the 911 call. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was looking at his SUV, and then started to approach it. It was at the beginning of the call.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Martin was not sizing up Zimmerman's SUV or doing anything at all suspicious.
Zimmerman said Martin was looking in windows in the call, but recanted that after the actual path of Martin was tracked by police.

I don't know how you can say that and then claim you listened to the 911 call. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was looking at his SUV, and then started to approach it. It was at the beginning of the call.

I don't think he has looked at any of the evidence.....all he has is his biased opnion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Martin was not sizing up Zimmerman's SUV or doing anything at all suspicious.
Zimmerman said Martin was looking in windows in the call, but recanted that after the actual path of Martin was tracked by police.

I don't know how you can say that and then claim you listened to the 911 call. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was looking at his SUV, and then started to approach it. It was at the beginning of the call.

I don't think he has looked at any of the evidence.....all he has is his biased opnion.

Agreed. I spent two years researching and discussing the subject when it was front and center. I had over three dozen articles on it in my folder. Unfortunately, some of those articles were too old for them to keep online.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- the question was put to Ray, who brought up the analogy.

Once again, thugs engaging in criminal activity are fully aware there decisions could cost them everything. Ray simply used one example, there are thousands of possible scenarios.

.

Once AGAIN --- THE QUESTION WAS FOR THE POSTER WHO MADE THE ANALOGY. YOU ARE NOT THAT POSTER AND YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR HIM. I've got three bigger fonts plus bold if that didn't get through.

Got it, you're only interested in playing a game of semantics, here's a clue for ya commie, semantics is the last bastion of a loser.

ONCE AGAIN -- the post CLEARLY responded to *Ray* and *NOT TO YOU*. It's right there in the fucking quote nest. There is nothing you can do to change that.

There has literally never been a moment when that was not the case.

Poor little commie, this is an open forum, anyone can respond to any post. If you want to have private conversations try PMs. Otherwise stop your fucking crying and whining.

.

Once AGAIN --- the question was directed at the poster WHO MADE THE ANALOGY to discern WHAT HE MEANT BY IT ---- not what YOU meant by an analogy you didn't even make in the first place.

Fer fuck's sake GROW THE FUCK UP.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, thugs engaging in criminal activity are fully aware there decisions could cost them everything. Ray simply used one example, there are thousands of possible scenarios.

.

Once AGAIN --- THE QUESTION WAS FOR THE POSTER WHO MADE THE ANALOGY. YOU ARE NOT THAT POSTER AND YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR HIM. I've got three bigger fonts plus bold if that didn't get through.

Got it, you're only interested in playing a game of semantics, here's a clue for ya commie, semantics is the last bastion of a loser.

ONCE AGAIN -- the post CLEARLY responded to *Ray* and *NOT TO YOU*. It's right there in the fucking quote nest. There is nothing you can do to change that.

There has literally never been a moment when that was not the case.

Poor little commie, this is an open forum, anyone can respond to any post. If you want to have private conversations try PMs. Otherwise stop your fucking crying and whining.

.

Once AGAIN --- the question was directed at the poster WHO MADE THE ANALOGY to discern WHAT HE MEANT BY IT ---- not what YOU meant by an analogy you didn't even make in the first place.

Fer fuck's sake GROW THE FUCK UP.

You need some cheese with that whine? LMAO

.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It was demonstrated in court that from the time Trayvon took off running till the time the confrontation between him and George occurred--- 4 minutes elapsed. Trayvon told his g/f on the phone he was running.............the question being.......where was he running to?

Where he was staying with his father and his father's g/f was very close...as was pointed out by the defense attorney in the court room a good football player could have thrown a football from the point where he took off running to where he was staying with his father.

During this time George was on the phone with the dispatcher....but where was Trayvon? The time the fight started was verified by the neighbors who called the police as they heard the commotion and requested the police stating some guy was yelling for help.

The prosecutor completely ignored the mystery of the 4 mins. Why? Because they had no rational explanation as to where Trayvon went or what he may have been doing.


The Zimmerman defense team scored big on this....Z's attorney asked everyone to be quiet for 4 mins and whilst waiting for the 4 mins asked them to think about where Trayvon was and what he was doing for the 4 mins.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was demonstrated in court that from the time Trayvon took off running till the time the confrontation between him and George occurred--- 4 minutes elapsed. Trayvon told his g/f on the phone he was running.............the question being.......where was he running to?

Where he was staying with his father and his father's g/f was very close...as was pointed out by the defense attorney in the court room a good football player could have thrown a football from the point where he took off running to where he was staying with his father.

During this time George was on the phone with the dispatcher....but where was Trayvon? The time the fight started was verified by the neighbors who called the police as they heard the commotion and requested the police stating some guy was yelling for help.

The prosecutor completely ignored the mystery of the 4 mins. Why? Because they had no rational explanation as to where Trayvon went or what he may have been doing.


The Zimmerman defense team scored big on this....Z's attorney asked everyone to be quiet for 4 mins and whilst waiting for the 4 mins asked them to think about where Trayvon was and what he was doing for the 4 mins.

The better question is, if Trayvon was scared of Zim, why didn't he call the police himself in that four minutes? Had he done that, the police would have explained what was going on. But apparently he was not scared of Zimmerman. If somebody is after me that I fear would bring me harm, the last person I'm going to call is my GF. She can't help me.

The other way around, if my GF calls me because somebody is tailing her, and she can't think straight, I'm going to call the police for her. So what we have here are two people, one of them claiming to be in a bad situation, and neither one called the cops. Yeah, that's believable.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Are you really this dumb. It doesn't matter who was running or where they ran......martin circled back and attacked martin.

zimmerman stopped looking for martin and was going back to his SUV to wait for the police....since he called 911 and asked for the police...you do understand that...right? martin told his friend on the phone that he lost zimmerman in the condo complex....couldn't see him.....he went back and attacked zimmerman.....

A witness saw martin on top of zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.........and testified to this in court....

You can't make things up when there is an actual trial with actual witnesses and evidence that show you don't know what you are talking about....

You don't know what you are talking about....

It most definitely does matter who was running, because it is clear Zimmerman did NOT go back towards his SUV.
If he had, then the fight would not have happened nearly 2 blocks away, as it did.

And it is impossible for Martin to have gone back, because he was stopped as he made the cellphone call, and the call got interrupted by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

And no, there was no witness who said they saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
There were 2 witnesses, but it was too dark and far away for any sort of details like that.
{...
John Good told the jury today that he yelled "stop" at both men shortly after realizing that what he at first assumed to be a dog attack was actually two men grappling on the ground.
"I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious," said Good.
Good testified that he saw what he believed to be Martin on top of Zimmerman.
...
Good testified that he did not see Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
...}
{...
Jonathan Manalo, who also lived near the shooting scene, testified today that Zimmerman told him just moments after Martin was killed to call his wife and say "Just tell her I shot someone."
Manalo did not see the confrontation between Zimmerman and the unarmed teenager, but walked outside of his home with a flashlight moments after hearing a gunshot.
He said Zimmerman looked like he had "got his butt beat," but was "speaking clearly."
...}

Not sure why you are focused on "running." We have zimmerman's 911 call, where he stated to the operator he was following martin, that he lost martin, then the operator tells him they didn't need him to follow martin he said okay and that he was heading back to his car to meet the police......

The point of running is that somehow Zimmerman and Martin got about 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV, after starting the 9/11 call at Zimmerman's SUV. That required a lot of time and movement if Zimmerman were just walking. But we know he was not because we hear him running in the audio of the call to the 9/11 operator.
To get 2 blocks away so quickly, Zimmerman has to continue running around the houses to cut off Martin, even after the 9/11 operator told him not to.

More nonsense......what the dispatcher heard was the wind blowing on the phone.


George Zimmerman prosecutors have proved his innocence, says lawyer

Wrong. Anyone can hear in the dispatcher audio is the running foot steps, the heavy breathing, the movement of the phone on his wiskers, etc. It is clear to all that Zimmerman was running.
And we do not need the audio to prove it as well, since we know where the fight happened, and it was blocks away from the SUV where Zimmerman started the call to the dispatcher. So to cover those blocks in such a short time, he had to have been running.