27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:36 am
@Thomas,
Well, yesterday you thought he was doing ok with the facts he had, but no matter. Anyway, perhaps the prosecution was saving their best guy for last.
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:40 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Well, yesterday you thought he was doing ok with the facts he had, but no matter.

I guess that yesterday I was tired of arguing how poor the facts he had were, and was itching to say something conciliatory. We contrarians need love too, you know. . . . (Choking rhetorically.)
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:00 am
there, there, thomas <pats thomas on the head>
DrewDad
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:15 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

But again, Zimmerman wouldn't have put Martin in this position just by asking "what are you doing here?".

Nah. Zimmerman's stalkerish behavior already gave Martin reason to be afraid of an imminent threat.

Weird that justified non-deadly force has a different level of proof than justified deadly force. (Defendant has to prove imminent threat in using non-deadly force.)
Thomas
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:17 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Weird that justified non-deadly force has a different level of proof than justified deadly force. (Defendant has to prove imminent threat in using non-deadly force.)

I noticed that, too. It is weird. Apparently, Florida disapproves of pussies who only use non-deadly force, so it's more inclined to put them in jail.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:26 am
@MontereyJack,
Hey, I already feel bad just arguing. Finding myself on the opposite of a lot people these days. Really bad on the whole Snowden thing.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:28 am
@revelette,
there, there, rev, here's one for you too <pats revelette on the head>
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 11:59 am
@MontereyJack,
thank you. I did beg for one.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 12:03 pm
Read: The full instructions given to the Zimmerman jurors (pdf)
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 12:40 pm
I was listening to msnbc, clearly most are on the side of Trayvon Martin, the question has already been asked of the legal analyst, both said a defense verdict. I guess lawyer jargon for not guilty.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 01:22 pm
@revelette,

Interesting! Two things were new to me. One was the category of "excusable killing", as distinguished from "justifiable killing". If Zimmerman overreacted to a provocation of Martins and accidentally shot the gun in the heat of passion, that would get him off the hook. I had not known that. I would have liked to know more about the burden of proof for it.

The other point that was new to me is about standing your ground. I had always thought it didn't really apply to this case. Now I learn it does. (If Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no duty to retreat.)
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 01:43 pm
@Thomas,
we dont know that martin attacked zimmerman any more than we know that zimmerman attacked martin. we dont know what happened but we do know that the state did not prove zimmermans story false so he should walk.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
CLUE: You're not a member of that jury.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
we dont know that martin attacked zimmerman any more than we know that zimmerman attacked martin.

No we don't. But Butrflynet brought it up as a what-if, so I played along with it. Do you have a problem with that?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:32 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:

But again, Zimmerman wouldn't have put Martin in this position just by asking "what are you doing here?".

Zimmerman put Martin in that position by following him, first in his car then getting out and chasing after him on foot. We know Martin saw Zimmerman in his car. We also know Zimmerman was running when following Martin. That isn't the same thing as simply asking him a question.

Martin should be given the same benefit of doubt you want Zimmerman to have, don't you think?
parados
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:43 pm
There are several things about Zimmerman's story that are odd.

Where was the gun? If it was in the small of his back as some testimony seems to indicate then Martin couldn't have seen it while he was sitting on Zimmerman who was face up with his head "being pounded against concrete."

If Martin was sitting on Zimmerman with his knees in Zimmerman's armpits then how could Martin reach his gun that he would have been lying on with Martin's weight on top of him if it was in the small of his back. If it was in the front then wouldn't Martin have been sitting on the gun itself or at least blocking Zimmerman from reaching the gun?

Zimmerman stated he sat on Martin after he shot him holding his hands out yet the pictures of Martin show him face down on top of his own hands. What did Zimmerman do with his gun while he was supposedly on top of Martin? Did he reholster it? Did he drop it? Did he keep it in his hand while he tried to hold down Martin?

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:47 pm
@parados,
More so, because Martin didn't do anything wrong, and he's dead.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:47 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

firefly wrote:
According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony, Martin was apprehensive about Zimmerman following him, he was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and it was Zimmerman who confronted him and provoked an altercation, and Martin's response would have been defensive.

If Zimmerman provoked he altercation and Martin let Zimmerman provoke him, that's not self-defense on Martin's part. It's only self-defense if Zimmerman put Martin in "reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" (Florida Standard Jury Instructions, 3.6(f), page 2. (RTF file)) If a wannabe cop like Zimmerman asks you "what are you doing here?", you are right to be aggravated, and you have every right to ask "why are you following me?". But you're not in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.


Considering Martin ended up dead...don't you think it would have been reasonable.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Seems to me that from this point forward, any young black male in the state of Florida who is every approached by a white man ought to be in GREAT FEAR OF GREAT BODILY HARM...

...and ought to kill the guy ASAP...and invoke this as a defense.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 02:56 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Since "great fear of bodily harm" cannot be proven, that's an excellent defense in Florida. Who's to say otherwise, especially for a black man?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:03:16