Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[mobb_deep 919]

Yes, mistakes were made on both sides.

 

Martin was walking home minding his own business right up until he stopped walking home and decided to confront Zimmerman. He shouldn't have bothered asking Zimmerman "why you followin me?" He should not have punched Zimmerman in the face. He should have continued to walk home and ignore Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman should've paid closer attention to his surroundings and not have allowed himself to be taken by surprise. He should have told Martin exactly why he was calling the police on him when Martin confronted him. He should've backed away from Martin as soon as he reacquired his whereabouts.

 

If you look at it objectively, you can clearly see mistakes were made by both.

I guess that's where you lose me, because I haven't seen any evidence that Martin confronted Zimmerman first.

 

Even if he did, if I'm walking down the street mindin my own business, and notice someone following me, you better believe I'm going to be 1) fearful and 2) ask the person why the fock they're following me.

 

You're going to honestly tell me that if you notice someone following you for no apparent reason, you're going to run home? Ignore them? Wait to be mugged and/or robbed?

[IGotWorms 4,053]

Yes, mistakes were made on both sides.

 

Martin was walking home minding his own business right up until he stopped walking home and decided to confront Zimmerman. He shouldn't have bothered asking Zimmerman "why you followin me?" He should not have punched Zimmerman in the face. He should have continued to walk home and ignore Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman should've paid closer attention to his surroundings and not have allowed himself to be taken by surprise. He should have told Martin exactly why he was calling the police on him when Martin confronted him. He should've backed away from Martin as soon as he reacquired his whereabouts.

 

If you look at it objectively, you can clearly see mistakes were made by both.

How would you react, if you were a 17 year-old just visiting your parents, trying to get back home to play video games with your little brother, and some racist wannabe cop followed you around the whole neighborhood eyeing you and calling the cops? You have every bit as much right to be there as that @sshole.

 

You would be angry. Maybe you would've handled it better than Martin did, but remember you are supposed to be a 17 year old in this scenario without the wisdom of adulthood. But even if maybe you would've acted a little more reasonably than Martin did, it doesn't mean he deserved to die for his actions.

[5-Points 3,258]

I guess that's where you lose me, because I haven't seen any evidence that Martin confronted Zimmerman first.

 

Even if he did, if I'm walking down the street mindin my own business, and notice someone following me, you better believe I'm going to be 1) fearful and 2) ask the person why the fock they're following me.

 

You're going to honestly tell me that if you notice someone following you for no apparent reason, you're going to run home? Ignore them? Wait to be mugged and/or robbed?

By all accounts Martin had a lead on Zimmerman. Martin's friend testified that Martin stopped running and initiated contact by asking Zimmerman why he was following him. All Martin had to do was continue walking home. Sure, Zimmerman may have continued to follow him. Prolly right up until Martin got home and walked in the front door. Everbody goes home that night.

 

If I see somebody on the street that I feel is suspicious, I pay closer attention to them and I go on about my business. I wouldn't wait for them to catch up to me so I could ask them what they were doing.

[5-Points 3,258]

How would you react, if you were a 17 year-old just visiting your parents, trying to get back home to play video games with your little brother, and some racist wannabe cop followed you around the whole neighborhood eyeing you and calling the cops? You have every bit as much right to be there as that @sshole.

 

You would be angry. Maybe you would've handled it better than Martin did, but remember you are supposed to be a 17 year old in this scenario without the wisdom of adulthood. But even if maybe you would've acted a little more reasonably than Martin did, it doesn't mean he deserved to die for his actions.

Who said somebody deserved to die? Actions have consequences. Consequences aren't always commensurate with the actions that caused them.

[BLS 314]

The funny thing is, you're not being objective either. You are Mr. Self Defense. It's your whole thing. So how could you possibly be objective in determining whether it was actually justified here?

 

Depending on who the jury believes, it could conclude:

- Zimmerman followed Martin despite being advised against it by dispatch

- Zimmerman went in to the situation angry and intending to do something-- these ###### punks always get away

- When Martin disappeared, Zimmerman got out of his car to chase him down. He wanted to see what street it was for the cops? Yeah right, there are three streets in the whole neighborhood.

- Martin then confronted Zimmerman, why are you following me for?

- Zimmerman acts as the aggressor and hits Martin

- A scuffle ensues

- Zimmerman is on top for some or most of the time

- Zimmerman's injuries were not serious

- Martin is screaming for his life on the tape

 

The evidence is there. Now I do happen to believe there is reasonable doubt, at least as to Murder 2. But to say that OBJECTIVELY speaking Zimmerman unquestionably acted in lawful self defense just betrays your bias.

 

Really? First off, I didn't ever use the term 'unquestionably', because I already said NOBODY is ever gonna really know except GZ and those he shares it with.

 

Evidence.....clearly suggests Zimmerman was getting his ass beat. Evidence suggests his story is plausible and he could have been having his head smashed onto the sidewalk.

That's clearly fear of death or great bodily harm. Thus self defense using deadly force is justified.

 

Again, don't let the facts get in your way of holding on to some ridiculous hope that this dude is gonna get convicted, because he shouldn't, and mostly likely won't.

Hard evidence suggests self defense. Circumstantial evidence abounds, and it proves very little if anything.

[mobb_deep 919]

By all accounts Martin had a lead on Zimmerman. Martin's friend testified that Martin stopped running and initiated contact by asking Zimmerman why he was following him. All Martin had to do was continue walking home. Sure, Zimmerman may have continued to follow him. Prolly right up until Martin got home and walked in the front door. Everbody goes home that night.

 

If I see somebody on the street that I feel is suspicious, I pay closer attention to them and I go on about my business. I wouldn't wait for them to catch up to me so I could ask them what they were doing.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Obviously I'm not speaking on what legally constitutes initiating an altercation, and I don't pretend to know the law.

 

I'm speaking purely from a common sense perspective. If a guy is profiling and then stalking another guy, he initiated the confrontation. Not the guy minding his own business, walking down the street.

[kutulu 1,630]

Walks in the criminal trial but gets ass raped in the civil?

[5-Points 3,258]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Obviously I'm not speaking on what legally constitutes initiating an altercation, and I don't pretend to know the law.

 

I'm speaking purely from a common sense perspective. If a guy is profiling and then stalking another guy, he initiated the confrontation. Not the guy minding his own business, walking down the street.

All I'm saying is both parties could've handled things differently. Neither is completely to blame or completely blameless.

[drobeski 3,061]

Who called the police ? Martin or Zimmerman ?

Your honor, i.rest my case.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Who called the police ? Martin or Zimmerman ?

Your honor, i.rest my case.

 

The jury finds drobeski...a moron.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Depending on who the jury believes,

Just fukking awesome, insightful legal analysis from Worms here.

 

If the jury believes the prosecution GZ will be convicted. If they believe the defense he will be acquitted.

 

Brilliant!

 

I hope you didn't pay good money for that fake law degree, Matlock.

[JTB 52]

Just fukking awesome, insightful legal analysis from Worms here.

 

If the jury believes the prosecution GZ will be convicted. If they believe the defense he will be acquitted.

 

Brilliant!

 

I hope you didn't pay good money for that fake law degree, Matlock.

And he won't make a full prediction in my Zimmerman prediction tread either. instead he tried to insult MY question in MY thread.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And he won't make a full prediction in my Zimmerman prediction tread either. instead he tried to insult MY question in MY thread.

This way he can come back later and say "See, I was right. I am a real lawyer".

 

That's why he had GZ convicted of everything from jaywalking to murder based on doctored 911 tapes and a 7 year old photo of lil Trayvon.

[kpbuckeye 2]

How would you react, if you were a 17 year-old just visiting your parents, trying to get back home to play video games with your little brother, and some racist wannabe cop followed you around the whole neighborhood eyeing you and calling the cops? You have every bit as much right to be there as that @sshole.

 

You would be angry. Maybe you would've handled it better than Martin did, but remember you are supposed to be a 17 year old in this scenario without the wisdom of adulthood. But even if maybe you would've acted a little more reasonably than Martin did, it doesn't mean he deserved to die for his actions.

 

why is it that sissy girls like you cry racism so much?

[IGotWorms 4,053]

All I'm saying is both parties could've handled things differently. Neither is completely to blame or completely blameless.

One guy shot and killed someone; the other did not.

[IGotWorms 4,053]

And he won't make a full prediction in my Zimmerman prediction tread either. instead he tried to insult MY question in MY thread.

Because your points were effing stupid. And you're just an RP alias anyway.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And you're just an RP alias anyway.

.....and Worms is on tilt.

[IGotWorms 4,053]

.....and Worms is on tilt.

I'm not the one trying to back myself up with aliases

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not the one trying to back myself up with aliases

Neither am I.

 

But you are the one who had his ass handed to him and had to resort to your "alias busting".

[RLLD 3,988]

How would you react, if you were a 17 year-old just visiting your parents, trying to get back home to play video games with your little brother, and some racist wannabe cop followed you around the whole neighborhood eyeing you and calling the cops? You have every bit as much right to be there as that @sshole.

 

You would be angry. Maybe you would've handled it better than Martin did, but remember you are supposed to be a 17 year old in this scenario without the wisdom of adulthood. But even if maybe you would've acted a little more reasonably than Martin did, it doesn't mean he deserved to die for his actions.

 

I would have gotten the fock away from any nindividual "following" me, that act is akin to stalking, and if you are being hunted its time to get away. If someone is following you its time to recognize that you are in danger, get to your dad, get indoors, get away.

 

Now if you are a moron, perhaps listened to one too many rap lyrics, then you turn to the danger, and then you may die. The ability to avoid a life threatening situation is not the exclusive domain of the aged, just the intelligent.

 

If Zimmerman had said a word to him that exchange would have likely been evident during the phone conversation, and would have been included in the testimony.

 

More than likely, idiot-kid-Martin turned and decided to be a be tough guy and show that damb cracker how a black man rolls.....once a bullet passes through his chest....

[Sho Nuff 720]

Neither am I.

 

But you are the one who had his ass handed to him and had to resort to your "alias busting".

Still hilarious that you think you have ever handed anyone's ass to them.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Still hilarious that you think you have ever handed anyone's ass to them.

I didn't say I handed him his ass, Slo-N-Nuts.

 

You are really dumb.

 

Time for a classic Slo-N-Nuts crawfish.

[wiffleball 4,764]

Blue bubblicious, skittles..

 

Its pretty clear. Candy causes diabetes, cavities and

 

 

MURDER!

[Sho Nuff 720]

I didn't say I handed him his ass, Slo-N-Nuts.

 

You are really dumb.

 

Time for a classic Slo-N-Nuts crawfish.

 

Oh...ok, so you were bragging instead that others handed his ass to him?

Time for the classic RP being an idiot again...like in every post (cue asking for a link now too).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Nailed it!

[5-Points 3,258]

One guy shot and killed someone; the other did not.

Them's the breaks.

[Mike Honcho 4,861]

Just fukking awesome, insightful legal analysis from Worms here.

 

If the jury believes the prosecution GZ will be convicted. If they believe the defense he will be acquitted.

 

Brilliant!

 

I hope you didn't pay good money for that fake law degree, Matlock.

 

LMAO at the guy who clearly doesn't understand the rules of hearsay now thinking he's focking Clarence Darrow.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

LMAO at the guy who clearly doesn't understand the rules of hearsay now thinking he's focking Clarence Darrow.

One doesn't have to be Clarence Darrow to know when Worms says if the jury believes the prosecution they will convict, and if they believe the defense they will acquit, that he is stating the obvious.

 

One doesn't have to be an attorney. One just has to have some common sense to know that statement offers no insight whatsoever into anything.

 

Since you didn't grasp that we have yet another example of your lack of common sense. Thanks for chiming in with your idiocy. Always good for a chuckle.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Analysis of the trial so far by a real attorney:

 

 

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

 

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

Prosecutors are at a distinct legal disadvantage.

 

They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.

The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:

He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.

For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.

As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict. Prosecutors have to effectively disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So what exactly would that mean based on the facts as we know them?

Let's take a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario whereby jurors don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin (the lead detective who seemed to find Zimmerman's account credible had a problem with this part of Zimmerman's account).

Let's also assume they believe Zimmerman approached Martin and it is only because Zimmerman was tailing Trayvon Martin that a fight ensued. First of all, the fact that there was a fight at all makes a murder conviction difficult. To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

While prosecutors argue that Zimmerman's statements to the 911 operator about the "f------ punks" always "getting away," shows ill will, most legal analysts felt from the beginning that with a fight, a murder charge was overreaching.

Manslaughter is far more likely to create debate in that jury room (there could also be even lesser crimes they consider, where they could find him guilty of something).

Zimmerman's injuries alone -- his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head -- are objective evidence to support his account that he shot Martin as he was being pummeled.

Just as important is the testimony of neighbor John Good, who lived directly in front of the location where Martin was shot. He very precisely (but reluctantly) testified that he saw the lighter skinned man in the red jacket on the bottom of the scuffle with the darker skinned man with the darker clothing on the top in a "mixed martial arts position." He said he now believes that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

But wait, another witness said she thought Zimmerman was likely on top. Put aside the fact that Good's home is the closest to the incident and that her testimony didn't seem nearly as credible or definitive as Good's, that doesn't change the legal reality that one does not negate the other.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case and so if there is reasonable doubt, the defense wins. Good's testimony in conjunction with Zimmerman's injuries are likely enough to cast reasonable doubt on the key question, which is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to shoot Martin to prevent "great bodily injury."

Of course, the jurors could also accept all or the vast majority of Zimmerman's account, making an acquittal that much easier.

What about the fact that prosecution witnesses have testified that his injuries were not that significant? While interesting (and debatable), the only relevant legal question is what was Zimmerman thinking or fearing at the time, not what already occurred.

In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman "reasonably" feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty.

To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.UdnpPflJNQ0

[Mike Honcho 4,861]

One doesn't have to be Clarence Darrow to know when Worms says if the jury believes the prosecution they will convict, and if they believe the defense they will acquit, that he is stating the obvious.

 

One doesn't have to be an attorney. One just has to have some common sense to know that statement offers no insight whatsoever into anything.

 

Since you didn't grasp that we have yet another example of your lack of common sense. Thanks for chiming in with your idiocy. Always good for a chuckle.

You are correct, one only needs common sense to know you know nothing of criminal law. We can add that to the long list of things you know nothing about...climate change, grammar, math, women...

[The Moz 69]

How would you react, if you were a 17 year-old just visiting your parents, trying to get back home to play video games with your little brother, and some racist wannabe cop followed you around the whole neighborhood eyeing you and calling the cops? You have every bit as much right to be there as that @sshole.

 

You would be angry. Maybe you would've handled it better than Martin did, but remember you are supposed to be a 17 year old in this scenario without the wisdom of adulthood. But even if maybe you would've acted a little more reasonably than Martin did, it doesn't mean he deserved to die for his actions.

Your love of using the word racist is quite amusing and makes you look really idiotic at times.

 

Zimmerman is obviously wound pretty tight he sees a black teen walking by himself at night in a subdivision. Now was it stereotypical to follow him of course but it wasn't like he was doing it just to be creepy he called the cops as he was doing it - so it isn't like he was stalking the guy to shoot him - he wanted to see what he was up to. GZ goes to wait for the cop and TM confronts him and starts beating on him. While I don't fault TM for confronting him I would have as well - I would said dude what's going on why you following me? Tell the guy off but you don't go to beat sh!t out of him. I don't know if he was in real danger or not and noone really ever will - I do know by the simple fact TM attacked GZ and GZ had a legal right to carry a gun there is no other ruling but self defense - unless you can prove he A. Broke free of Trayvon and pulled out his gun then executed him ( which is almost impossible from point blank) B. GZ was starting the fight and was winning then killed him or C. GZ pulled out his gun before TM rushed him (which would be impossible to prove) . I mean damn your a focking lawyer or at least claim to be one here - you would think of all people you would be able to accept this.

[The Moz 69]

If this trial was only being done on evidence and the case itself - no one would be even questioning right now that GZ should get off. Too bad this isn't a trial it is a Political charade that is divided down party lines for some reason.

[BLS 314]

If this trial was only being done on evidence and the case itself - no one would be even questioning right now that GZ should get off. Too bad this isn't a trial it is a Political charade that is divided down party lines for some reason.

 

Amen. It's a racial witch-hunt.

[Gepetto 1,215]

Travon was on top of Zimmerman and pounding his head into the concrete. When someone is sitting on your chest, it's very difficult to breathe. Then Travon says "you're going to die tonght" and covers Zimmerman's nose and mouth. At that point Zimmerman knows his life is threatened not only by Travon's words, but by Travon's actions. And as George Zimmerman tries to get Travon off of him he is not able to. He's also not able to breathe. At that point, he pulls his gun and fires. Then he quickly gasps for air to get oxygen into his lungs. That's what I think may have been the reason he pulled his gun and fired it into Travon.

[Voltaire 5,033]

Travon was on top of Zimmerman and pounding his head into the concrete. When someone is sitting on your chest, it's very difficult to breathe. Then Travon says "you're going to die tonght" and covers Zimmerman's nose and mouth. At that point Zimmerman knows his life is threatened not only by Travon's words, but by Travon's actions. And as George Zimmerman tries to get Travon off of him he is not able to. He's also not able to breathe. At that point, he pulls his gun and fires. Then he quickly gasps for air to get oxygen into his lungs. That's what I think may have been the reason he pulled his gun and fired it into Travon.

 

So if Zimmerman couldn't breath, couldn't get oxygen, it must have been Trayvon screaming for help in the background of the 911 call.

[RLLD 3,988]

If this trial was only being done on evidence and the case itself - no one would be even questioning right now that GZ should get off. Too bad this isn't a trial it is a Political charade that is divided down party lines for some reason.

 

Correct. Is Trayvon Martin's life somehow worth so much more than the dozens of other teenagers shot across the nation that week, or since? Why should it be that this young man's shooting should warrant so much attention?

 

The answer is because it can, because its the kind of situation that people can exploit for ratings, for personal gain, for attention. here we have a pretty nice situation for those who want to continue to propagate that there is some secret white agenda against the black people. Now those who exploit others for status and wealth have that golden opportunity to pretend as if this is some kind of example.

 

Meanwhile, African Americans in this nation are equally quick to use the notion of coincidence to attempt to debunk the repeated situations of black violence, suggesting that people are picking and plucking those situations to suggest a wider problem.....

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Correct. Is Trayvon Martin's life somehow worth so much more than the dozens of other teenagers shot across the nation that week, or since? Why should it be that this young man's shooting should warrant so much attention?

 

The answer is because it can, because its the kind of situation that people can exploit for ratings, for personal gain, for attention. here we have a pretty nice situation for those who want to continue to propagate that there is some secret white agenda against the black people. Now those who exploit others for status and wealth have that golden opportunity to pretend as if this is some kind of example.

 

Meanwhile, African Americans in this nation are equally quick to use the notion of coincidence to attempt to debunk the repeated situations of black violence, suggesting that people are picking and plucking those situations to suggest a wider problem.....

 

While the evidence at this point won't and shouldn't convict the guy.

This was made into a racial issue by a guy following a kid simply because he was a young black kid.

 

I don't think anyone is really trying to claim this is debunking anything about black violence.

[Bert 1,125]

 

While the evidence at this point won't and shouldn't convict the guy.

This was made into a racial issue by a guy following a kid simply because he was a young black kid.

 

I don't think anyone is really trying to claim this is debunking anything about black violence.

And the person using the phrase "crazy azz cracker" had nothing to do with making this a racial issue.

 

So if most of the crime in an area is committed by young black males it is racist to be suspicious of a young black male wondering the streets at night?

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

And the person using the phrase "crazy azz cracker" had nothing to do with making this a racial issue.

 

So if most of the crime in an area is committed by young black males it is racist to be suspicious of a young black male wondering the streets at night?

 

Never said that Trayvon did not add to the racial aspect of it...just when it became a racial issue.

 

And where did I say "racist"?

I said it became racial...as it was.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

 

And the person using the phrase "crazy azz cracker" had nothing to do with making this a racial issue.

 

So if most of the crime in an area is committed by young black males it is racist to be suspicious of a young black male wondering the streets at night?

or the doctored 911 tapes by whichever network, or the focking potus sticking his nose in the story and claiming the kid could be his son...it was made racial intentionally for votes and votes alone.