New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[bigrebnc1775]

It all comes down as to who hit who first. The attacker can not claim he was standing his ground.

That is not true with the Florida law. There is no section or discussion about "who started it" or even who instigated it, in the Florida statute.

But wouldn't it be the case that the person who struck the first blow was the aggressor and the other person was standing their ground defending them self?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I would like to see this from another source other than Godlikeproductions...

Interviewing a guy, off camera, behind a door - credibility? Not too much.

It's possible he didn't want to be identified because of folks like the black panthers.

 

[Peach]

TRAYVON WAS STANDING HIS GROUND

When he was confronted by someone he thought was there to do him harm, he lashed out in defense of his life. Zimmerman who initiated this confrontation cannot use self defense when he was getting his butt kick by a kid drew his gun and shot this kid he was stalking and confronted. Zimmerman was the perpetrator of his incident, not Trayvon who was minding his business on his way home and did not owe Zimmerman who did not identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman, an explanation why he was where he was.

Zimmerman referring to Trayvon as a “fucking coon” clearly make this a hate crime and murder and not self defense.

You cannot pick a fight with some one, kill them and call it self defense when you are getting your butt kicked.

wow... you must have some extraordinary superpowers to have been an eyewitness that night all the way from Reno...

Various witnesses, and I don't see ballistics reported anywhere. The Grand Jury will I believe. Who know which one of the two was attacked, and who fought back, before the killing?

 

[KissMy]

It all comes down as to who hit who first. The attacker can not claim he was standing his ground.

That is not true with the Florida law. There is no section or discussion about "who started it" or even who instigated it, in the Florida statute.

They both had the same right to be at the place where the fight/shooting occurred. They both had the right to stand their ground. Once one threatened to attack or physically struck the other, they became the aggressor & were no longer just standing their ground.

 

[Si modo]

It all comes down as to who hit who first. The attacker can not claim he was standing his ground.

That is not true with the Florida law. There is no section or discussion about "who started it" or even who instigated it, in the Florida statute.

They both had the same right to be at the place where the fight/shooting occurred. They both had the right to stand their ground. Once one threatened to attack or physically struck the other, they became the aggressor & were no longer just standing their ground.

Well, the law says that Zimmerman can stand his ground.

You really should read the law. I quoted it for you.

 

[Si modo]

I would like to see this from another source other than Godlikeproductions...

Interviewing a guy, off camera, behind a door - credibility? Not too much.

It's possible he didn't want to be identified because of folks like the black panthers.

That's EXACTLY why he just calls himself "John".

Alleged eyewitness backs George Zimmerman in killing of Trayvon Martin - NYPOST.com

 

[KissMy]

That is not true with the Florida law. There is no section or discussion about "who started it" or even who instigated it, in the Florida statute.

They both had the same right to be at the place where the fight/shooting occurred. They both had the right to stand their ground. Once one threatened to attack or physically struck the other, they became the aggressor & were no longer just standing their ground.

Well, the law says that Zimmerman can stand his ground.

You really should read the law. I quoted it for you.

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

 

[Si modo]

They both had the same right to be at the place where the fight/shooting occurred. They both had the right to stand their ground. Once one threatened to attack or physically struck the other, they became the aggressor & were no longer just standing their ground.

Well, the law says that Zimmerman can stand his ground.

You really should read the law. I quoted it for you.

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

 

[Katzndogz]

TRAYVON WAS STANDING HIS GROUND

When he was confronted by someone he thought was there to do him harm, he lashed out in defense of his life. Zimmerman who initiated this confrontation cannot use self defense when he was getting his butt kick by a kid drew his gun and shot this kid he was stalking and confronted. Zimmerman was the perpetrator of his incident, not Trayvon who was minding his business on his way home and did not owe Zimmerman who did not identify himself as a Neighborhood Watchman, an explanation why he was where he was.

Zimmerman referring to Trayvon as a “fucking coon” clearly make this a hate crime and murder and not self defense.

You cannot pick a fight with some one, kill them and call it self defense when you are getting your butt kicked.

wow... you must have some extraordinary superpowers to have been an eyewitness that night all the way from Reno...

Various witnesses, and I don't see ballistics reported anywhere. The Grand Jury will I believe. Who know which one of the two was attacked, and who fought back, before the killing?

I don't think there will be a ballistics report. It doesn't look like one is necessary. A ballistics report would match the bullet with the gun. Zimmerman said I shot him and here is the gun. There's no argument that the bullet really came from the grassy knoll.

 

[KissMy]

Well, the law says that Zimmerman can stand his ground.

You really should read the law. I quoted it for you.

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

The law is good if the aggressor had a weapon. It means that if someone pulls a gun on you, you do not have to first retreat giving them a chance to shoot you before taking him out.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, the law says that Zimmerman can stand his ground.

You really should read the law. I quoted it for you.

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

The law is excellent whether or not a kid is dead.

At one time entire criminal prosecutions turned on whether the victim of a crime really retreated sufficiently to enable them to have a right of self defense. People hiding in closets on a second floor have been denied the right to fight back because they could have jumped out of a window rather than harm an assailant.

 

[Si modo]

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

The law is good if the aggressor had a weapon. It means that if someone pulls a gun on you, you do not have to first retreat giving them a chance to shoot you before taking him out.

While that may be true, the rest of the law in Florida allows for wild-west style street justice.

It's a bad law and a kid is dead.

I'm not against stand your ground laws when they are sensible. This one isn't. In fact, Virginia does not have a "stand your ground" law, but our rules on self-defense cover that situation you mention.

 

[Katzndogz]

The law says they can both stand their ground. Neither had the right to attack the other.

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

The law is good if the aggressor had a weapon. It means that if someone pulls a gun on you, you do not have to first retreat giving them a chance to shoot you before taking him out.

What is a weapon? A gun is a weapon. A knife is a weapon. How about a rock, a stapler, a tire iron, a lamp, a length of rope, piano wire.

Anything can be a weapon.

 

[Si modo]

Good. That is true, both had that right, if Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm, that is. And, we won't know that. We do know that he wasn't liking being followed and probably was scared/concerned about that, though.

Unfortunately, the law is bad and a kid is dead.

The law is good if the aggressor had a weapon. It means that if someone pulls a gun on you, you do not have to first retreat giving them a chance to shoot you before taking him out.

What is a weapon? A gun is a weapon. A knife is a weapon. How about a rock, a stapler, a tire iron, a lamp, a length of rope, piano wire.

Anything can be a weapon.

And most self defense legislation allows for defending with deadly force. I know Virginia does, and we have no "stand your ground" law.

 

[Peach]

wow... you must have some extraordinary superpowers to have been an eyewitness that night all the way from Reno...

Various witnesses, and I don't see ballistics reported anywhere. The Grand Jury will I believe. Who know which one of the two was attacked, and who fought back, before the killing?

I don't think there will be a ballistics report. It doesn't look like one is necessary. A ballistics report would match the bullet with the gun. Zimmerman said I shot him and here is the gun. There's no argument that the bullet really came from the grassy knoll.

Some evidence will show how far away from the shooter Martin was; another question is whether the victims' prints are on the gun.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Pot Linked To Trayvon Martin Suspension, His Family Says | Fox News

Has anyone caught wind of this yet? I thought it was said he was suspended for being late to class? Now the family attorney for Trayvon Martin is saying there was an empty bag with marijuana residue found on Martin's person.

 

[Si modo]

Various witnesses, and I don't see ballistics reported anywhere. The Grand Jury will I believe. Who know which one of the two was attacked, and who fought back, before the killing?

I don't think there will be a ballistics report. It doesn't look like one is necessary. A ballistics report would match the bullet with the gun. Zimmerman said I shot him and here is the gun. There's no argument that the bullet really came from the grassy knoll.

Some evidence will show how far away from the shooter Martin was; another question is whether the victims' prints are on the gun.

But.............that's not ballistics. You know that, right?

The bullet that killed Martin came from Zimmerman's gun. That is not in dispute.

The weapon is already in evidence and marked "TS-1". Evidence is analyzed for prints, but that is not "ballistics".

The bullet that killed Martin was retrieved from his body, but that is done by the medical examiner. That is not a 'ballistics' analysis. Angle of entry is also done by a medical examiner. That's not "ballistics".

 

[uptownlivin90]

Well, in Virginia, who attacked who first would matter, because that is the law here, as it pertains to using deadly force in self-defense.

It's not the law in Florida, though.

So what would determine whether or not this was Self-Defense in Florida?

According to the law in Florida, this:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.​

I understand the Law in Florida. The point is by this definition either one of them could have claimed self-defense... the facts don't give us a clear picture into who actually was defending themselves or if both of them were defending themselves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pot Linked To Trayvon Martin Suspension, His Family Says | Fox News

Has anyone caught wind of this yet? I thought the school district said he was suspended for being late to class? Now the family attorney for Trayvon Martin is saying there was an empty bag with marijuana residue found on Martin's person.

How is this POSSIBLY relevant to the case?

Who cares?

 

[Si modo]

So what would determine whether or not this was Self-Defense in Florida?

According to the law in Florida, this:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.​

I understand the Law in Florida. The point is by this definition either one of them could have claimed self-defense... the facts don't give us a clear picture into who actually was defending themselves or if both of them were defending themselves.

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, the statute allows for both to stand your ground. Unfortunately for Martin, Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon.

It's a bad law, IMO.