The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[syrenn]

I will say this, I might have a future stalker on my hands. I will for sure retreat and call 911. But I am a wimp. Lol

 

[Luissa]

According to Florida law 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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:
(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.

So kindly explain to me how Florida law would excuse Martin from being charged with a crime? Did Zimmerman threaten him verbally? Did he brandish a handgun when he questioned Martin? Did he get within a threatening "range" of Martin? What is it that Zimmerman did BESIDE following Martin AT A DISTANCE that you think provides Martin with an excuse for assault and battery?

I don't know how it would excuse him of a crime, but it has for many people in the same situation Martin was in. One man shot a guy while he laid on the ground, another pursued an unarmed man and got off. So it would be safe to say Martin would have gotten off if he had killed Zimmerman.

 

[Luissa]

I mean I'm sorry...but that just isn't a legal reason to beat the shit out of someone.

And what are the legal reasons for following someone who committed no crime while armed?

you dont have to have "legal reasons" to watch someone who looks suspicious. I caught a bank robber that way.

If said suspicious person runs.... there is no law that says you cannot follow.

In some states Zimmerman would have committed a crime by following while armed, especially with Martin being killed.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean I'm sorry...but that just isn't a legal reason to beat the shit out of someone.

And what are the legal reasons for following someone who committed no crime while armed?

It is not illegal to follow someone that you think may have committed a crime or may be about to commit a crime. The fact that Zimmerman was armed only comes into play after Martin commits assault and battery against him. Zimmerman didn't take out his gun until he was attacked.

This goes back to the concept of "imminent" danger, Luissa and it's there that your whole argument falls apart. Martin has no fear of imminent danger if the man who was following him has given up and is walking away. That would only come into play if Zimmerman was approaching him in a threatening manner. Talking to the Police on your cell phone is hardly "threatening".

 

[Oldstyle]

And what are the legal reasons for following someone who committed no crime while armed?

you dont have to have "legal reasons" to watch someone who looks suspicious. I caught a bank robber that way.

If said suspicious person runs.... there is no law that says you cannot follow.

In some states Zimmerman would have committed a crime by following while armed, especially with Martin being killed.

In what State is it a crime to follow someone while carrying a firearm that you are legally entitled to carry?

 

[Luissa]

I will say this, I might have a future stalker on my hands. I will for sure retreat and call 911. But I am a wimp. Lol

Yeah, dude is full on creeper.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're just making stuff up at this point...

 

[Luissa]

Making up what?

 

[Politico]

Everything should be seen. Relevance depends on what the jury thinks.

 

[Oldstyle]

Making up what?

When you come up with statements like in some States it's illegal to follow someone while in possession of a legally owned gun then you're just making things up. What State is that against the law in?

Once again people like yourself are trying to equate "following" with "attacking" and they are NOT the same!

 

[tjvh]

I agree his state of mind is relevant. I'm just on the fence if texts sent eariler in the day where he was "hostile" to friends go to his state of mind.

Texts about smoking weed, and how many punches Trayvon got in his last fight are kind of relevant when you have people trying to paint Trayvon as a cute little black boy who was wrongfully murdered by George Zimmerman.

 

[Oldstyle]

Someone like Truth Matters brings up an altercation that Zimmerman got into with an off duty police officer where the charge of assaulting a police officer was dismissed because Zimmerman didn't know he was dealing with a policeman...something that happened YEARS before the night Martin was killed as "proof" that Zimmerman is somehow a violent man...while texts by Trayvon from the very same DAY as the killing are deemed to be out of bounds because they may not have affected Martin HOURS later? Pardon me but you can't have it both ways...

 

[Ravi]

No I am not. I am claiming that someone following him could or would cause fear of imminent danger and under Florida law he would have gotten off even though Zimmerman might have retreated.
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand? I guess if you guys actually looked up cases where people used the Florida law to get off you would get my point. It's not my fault you don't bother to do so.

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

Horsehit--I'm not saying Martin did anything illegal. I'm saying Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force as a self defence as defined in Florida law. Create strawmen elsewhere.

Since we don't know who attacked who, we don't know if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force. I see your mind is already made up.

 

[KissMy]

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

Horsehit--I'm not saying Martin did anything illegal. I'm saying Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force as a self defence as defined in Florida law. Create strawmen elsewhere.

Since we don't know who attacked who, we don't know if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force. I see your mind is already made up.

We know Zimmerman was attacked due to physical evidence & witness statements that prove it. There is no proof that Martin was ever attacked or in fear of his life prior to the shot ending his attack on Zimmerman.

 

[Oldstyle]

Take a look at the photos of Zimmerman. Note that his hands have no abrasions on them. It's obvious that he wasn't punching anyone with those hands. Then look at his nose. It's obvious that he got popped a good one right in the beak. Then look at the back of his head. Those are classic concussive lacerations...the kind of injury you receive when your head is struck by something. All those things tell me that George Zimmerman got his ass beat by Trayvon Martin.

 

[syrenn]

I will say this, I might have a future stalker on my hands. I will for sure retreat and call 911. But I am a wimp. Lol

Yeah, dude is full on creeper.

holy shit!!!

be careful and stay safe!

 

[dilloduck]

I will say this, I might have a future stalker on my hands. I will for sure retreat and call 911. But I am a wimp. Lol

You love it.

 

[Luissa]

Horsehit--I'm not saying Martin did anything illegal. I'm saying Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force as a self defence as defined in Florida law. Create strawmen elsewhere.

Since we don't know who attacked who, we don't know if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force. I see your mind is already made up.

We know Zimmerman was attacked due to physical evidence & witness statements that prove it. There is no proof that Martin was ever attacked or in fear of his life prior to the shot ending his attack on Zimmerman.

No witness statement states who attacked whom first.

 

[Luissa]

Take a look at the photos of Zimmerman. Note that his hands have no abrasions on them. It's obvious that he wasn't punching anyone with those hands. Then look at his nose. It's obvious that he got popped a good one right in the beak. Then look at the back of his head. Those are classic concussive lacerations...the kind of injury you receive when your head is struck by something. All those things tell me that George Zimmerman got his ass beat by Trayvon Martin.

Doesn't mean Martin started it.

 

[dilloduck]

Since we don't know who attacked who, we don't know if Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force. I see your mind is already made up.

We know Zimmerman was attacked due to physical evidence & witness statements that prove it. There is no proof that Martin was ever attacked or in fear of his life prior to the shot ending his attack on Zimmerman.

No witness statement states who attacked whom first.

But you already want Zimmerman to do time. How about waiting for some facts ?