Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Zimmerman trial

1,450 posts in this topic

He shouldn't have followed Trayvon Martin. That's true. However, you and I don't know what happened after that. That's why we have a court system. It could be that George Zimmerman was forced to save his own life. It could be that he murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood. Again, you and I don't know for sure, and it's up to a *fair, honest* jury to decide. I apologize if you have psychic powers.

The problem is that if he did follow Trayvon he created the situation in which anyone's life was in danger. Even if Trayvon attacked him the stand your ground law is not the go looking for trouble and shot someone if you find it law. Even when that kid brought a knife to school his lawyer had to show that he did not intentionally or otherwise cause the situation that led to the confrontation. There was never any question of whether or not he believed his life was in danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty of what? Feel free to be specific.

Well, if it is proven that Trayvon attacked him and he should be guilty of aggravated manslaughter because by following Trayvon he aggravated the situation which led to Trayvon's death. If Trayvon did not attack him then second degree murder.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know that. Yes, he shouldn't have pursued Martin, but he had a right to shoot him *if* Martin tried to kill him. That kind of self defense is allowed by all states and most countries. We don't know what happened, so we can't *fairly* pass judgment until we do.

It is true that you can defend yourself, but you cannot go causing trouble then kill people in any state that I know of, even Florida.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if he did follow Trayvon he created the situation in which anyone's life was in danger.

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how it works with that type of gun, so I wonder about the gun's safety mechanism.

I've never seen it addressed and from what I recall, Zimmerman, himself never addressed that issue.

Is there a reason it's been a mute point?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from what I get of blockwatch captains they do follow supicious people in neighborhoods,Zimmermon did stop at the community center and called the police of a supicious person wandering though the neighborhood. Zimmermon saw Martin standing in a neighbor yard who was just robbed recently, Martin then came over to his car and walked around it and then went on through the passway.Zimmermon claims he got out of the a car to get a address in the passway ,when Martin came back on him and beat him up, why did`nt Martin just keep on going to get home, instead of confronting Zimmermon. Its a tragic thing that happen but they both created the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of bothersome (understatement) aspects about this case already in the record that I could go on about, but re: the struggle on the ground, I want to know what Zimmerman was ever doing with his hands.

There was screaming for a significant period- I think considering the circumstances, it was a significant period of time- and Zimmerman claims they were on the ground during all that screaming, and so what was Zimmerman doing, but just laying there... screaming? Seriously, what was the man ever doing with his hands during that time?

The only time he mentions using his hands was shortly before the gunshot... that he said tried to get Martins hand(s)? off of his mouth/nose?. Btw, I don't recall if he said he thought Martin was trying to shut him up, or if he thought Martin was trying to smother him. Maybe he meant Martin was smothering him in the process of attempting to shut him up, heck I don't know. (The man appeared to lose articulation when it came to conveying precisely the way events occurred that night.)

Zimmerman said travon had seen his gun and was trying to take it from him. So I would assume his hands were trying to keep control of his gun.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that you can defend yourself, but you cannot go causing trouble then kill people in any state that I know of, even Florida.

Following someone is not causing trouble. Turning around to confront that person is. Everyone forgets the girlfriends statement. She tried to talk travon out of confronting zximmerman. He was at the door he was headed for.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in that situation once. I was the one walking done a block, trying to get home after work. A guy came out and told me not to walk down that block or he would attack me. I went home and called the police. That was the end of that, after the police talked to him.

Zz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if he did follow Trayvon he created the situation in which anyone's life was in danger. Even if Trayvon attacked him the stand your ground law is not the go looking for trouble and shot someone if you find it law. Even when that kid brought a knife to school his lawyer had to show that he did not intentionally or otherwise cause the situation that led to the confrontation. There was never any question of whether or not he believed his life was in danger.

It depends on the circumstances. George is not responsible for Trayvon repeatedly smashing his head into the sidewalk (if that's the case).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it is proven that Trayvon attacked him and he should be guilty of aggravated manslaughter because by following Trayvon he aggravated the situation which led to Trayvon's death.

That makes no sense. If someone tries to kill you, and you defend yourself in a lethal manner, that's not a crime (if that's the case).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that you can defend yourself, but you cannot go causing trouble then kill people in any state that I know of, even Florida.

That's true. We don't know if that's what took place in this incident, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Zimmerman said travon had seen his gun and was trying to take it from him. So I would assume his hands were trying to keep control of his gun.

What I want to know is what was Zimmerman doing with his hands BEFORE he shot Martin because he didn't describe any defensive action on his part, and Martin's body didn't show that there was.

As I recall, Zimmerman stated that he'd actually forgotten that he had his gun. (I don't recall where he stated that, but it came from his own mouth.)

According to Zimmerman, his gun was holstered until immediately before the gunshot, so apparently Martin wasn't aware there was a gun until then.

Also, Zimmerman never expressed concern/consideration over the possibility of a scenario where Martin could have taken the gun away from him at any time before he says Martin saw it..

There's several versions re: the gun.

In one version (written statement), Martin saw the gun shortly before the gunshot occurred...and that's when Martin "assured" Zimmerman that he was "gonna die tonight".

In an video taped interview with an investigator at the police station, he said he felt Martin go after the gun, and so he pinned his arm down so he couldn't get it.

In the re-enactment, he said he "feels" Martin saw the gun...that as he was trying to scoot out from underneath Martin, his jacket shifted so that the gun was exposed.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, as that's entirely from memory.)

Edited by regi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe there were no signs of Z fighting back because he straight up got his butt kicked, not because he didn't try to defend himself.

42lbs weight difference, it takes less than that much PSI to leave visual damage to the human body. Even in a fight where you're getting clobbered, you having extra mass means your hits will be felt. There was absolutely no signs of this happening though, no brusing, no scratches, no nothing.. For a fight that supposedly lasted over a minute and ended in death.. You'd think he would fight back... He didn't, his only action of "fighting back" was a single bullet to the heart.

He can claim self defense if he thought that Trayvon was trying to kill him. Neither you nor I know if that's the case. The fact that there were no wounds, indicative of George fighting back before the fatal shot, proves absolutely nothing by itself. It *could* show that Trayvon beat up George before he was shot.

How do you know that George "threatened" Trayvon's life? What did he do or say (before the fatal shot) to show that he planned to murder Trayvon? In any event, in the pounding scenario, you might not get the choice between hurting and killing. The next pound could be the last one.

Wrong. He cannot claim self-defense if he initiated the confrontation. Once again, he initiated the confrontation, and while arguing, he reached for his pockets. He claims he was reaching for his phone, but does that matter? No. You go and confront someone and while arguing with them you reach for your pocket, you're making a very clear threat against their life. You could have a knife, a gun, or a bomb in your pocket at any given time, and when you are already showing signs of aggression it is a threat for you to reach into those possibly life ending pockets.

By the way since I keep saying you cannot defend yourself from a situation you create and people keep saying you can.. I will enlighten you to Florida Law!

The jury's unchallenged verdict on the burglary charge causes us to conclude that Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense.

Vila v. State 74 So.3d 1110 (5th Dist. 2011)

District Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted second degree murder. There was evidence that there had been an earlier altercation that day between the two men and that the defendant had attempted to run over the victim with his motorcycle. When the victim went to the store two or three hours later, the defendant was there. The defendant testified that the victim got out of his car and rushed towards him attacking him. The defendant said that he shot the victim because he was losing consciousness and was afraid the victim would kill him. The victim testified that when they arrived at the store the defendant banged on the back window of the victim's car, that he (the victim) got out of the car, the defendant approached the victim, and the two "got locked up" and "tussled a bit" when the defendant shot the victim.

The Court of Appeal found that victim's testimony was sufficient to invoke Section 776.041 and instruct the jury that the defendant may not claim self-defense if he "initially provoked" the attack.

Johnson v. State, 65 So.3d 1147 (3rd Dist. 2011)

The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped. … Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible. But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated. The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. (emphasis supplied)

Mixon v. State 59 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1952)

If an officer in any situation comes up to you walking on the street, or in any other area, there is no obligation for you to have any conversation with them, never run. Be polite if the officer asks you to stop, ask them if they are detaining you or if you are free to go. This is the best way to clearly determine the nature of the interaction. Unless an officer believes you are involved in criminal activity, there is no basis for them to stop you. I know the common question I get is “well if I say no they will say I am suspicious”, because why would I refuse, they should not justify a search or questioning of you because you do not want to speak with them. They use things like furtive movements, or any reason they can say you are a threat to them or reaching for a weapon, reaching for your pockets, sweating, which I think is a funny alleged indicator in sunny South Florida, being fidgety, nervousness. My recommendation, BE CALM, when approached, ask them if you are free to leave, be polite and walk away, do not run or abandon any property. Do not reach for your pockets or do any movement to allow them to allege you have a weapon. Walk away peacefully and quietly.

Source: http://www.minardila...ht-to-be-quiet/

HANNITY: So he said to you, you have expletive, you have a problem. Those are the exact words used. You remember it?

ZIMMERMAN: "Do you have a problem? What's your problem?"

HANNITY: What's your problem.

And you said to him, "I don't have a problem."

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You reached for your phone?

ZIMMERMAN: I reached for it as I was saying, "No, I don't have a problem."

HANNITY: And at that point you just got hit?

ZIMMERMAN: He was already within arm's length from me.

HANNITY: And was that the punch in the nose that broke your nose?

Now you see, everything I have said has been supported by real sources. Zimmerman admitted to reaching for his pockets out of his own mouth, I provided three incidents where Florida Judges made the case law clear, and I provided lawyer statements saying that in Florida someone reaching for their pockets in a confrontation is a threat against another persons life.

People are going to try and argue their heads away, but these are the facts.. He did act recklessly and caused the death of another. I'm all for his second degree murder charges, because they are just. If they would have tried to say it was a greater or lesser charge, it would have been a total sign disrespect to the family of the victim, and the liberty and justice the judicial system is supposed to uphold.

Edited by xFelix
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for his second degree murder charges, because they are just

If he is charged with second degree murder it will be a grave injustice... and finally prove once and for all that the media really does control the court system. :no:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is charged with second degree murder it will be a grave injustice... and finally prove once and for all that the media really does control the court system. :no:

So you dont agree that he acted recklessly and caused the death of another? That's what second degree murder is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/22/3464998/judge-excludes-state-audio-experts.html

The judge disallowed the admission of voice "experts" in the trial. Jurors can hear the 911 tape and witnesses who can testify which voice is which but no expert testimony to be allowed due to sketchy methodology. Seems fair but it will be interesting to see if this isn't an appealable decision regardless who wins.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the circumstances. George is not responsible for Trayvon repeatedly smashing his head into the sidewalk (if that's the case).

Yes, he is because he created the situation that put both of their lives in danger. Although, I am not sure I believe that story at all as it seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. If someone tries to kill you, and you defend yourself in a lethal manner, that's not a crime (if that's the case).

If you caused that person to fear for their life, if you created the situation, if you are looking for trouble and find it in the manner in which Zimmerman did you are criminally liable. That is in essence vigilante justice and is against the law in every state.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you dont agree that he acted recklessly and caused the death of another? That's what second degree murder is...

It really depends on what happened. If there really was a fight that led Zimmerman to believe his life was in danger then it could not be second degree murder because there was no malicious intent to kill. I believe though that in either case Zimmerman acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of his completely unnecessary and dangerous actions on that night or how they could cost him or others their lives. That is criminal when it leads to a death.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If trayvon was bashing his head into the sidewalk, I would think zimmerman was trying to stop that ie trying do some sort of push up to keep is face off the sidewalk. Zimmerman got the worse in the fist fight, he had a broken nose.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you caused that person to fear for their life, if you created the situation, if you are looking for trouble and find it in the manner in which Zimmerman did you are criminally liable. That is in essence vigilante justice and is against the law in every state.

Zimmerman did not start the fist fight. Travon was at his door and turned around to confront zimmerman. His girlfriend tried to get him to go inside, instead he turned around to confront zimmerman. Which means that travon was the one looking for trouble. What travon should have down was go inside and called 91 . Report a strange person was following him.

But, don't worry the jurry will find him guilty. So that the protests don't return.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm at my door and I turn around to see some stranger following me up to it, I'm going to confront him and defend my property, including gripping my own firearm should I be carrying it at the time. Get off my lawn. That's just common sense. It's a lapse in common sense and a double standard to say that someone can pursue you onto your own property and you can't even stand on it and confront him there, you have to go inside and lock the door. If laws were written in that way people would be forced into total dependence on police.

In this country we encourage, practice and protect civil liberties like self defense. If that's Zimmerman's alibi he will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. At the least, he looks guilty to me of some lesser charge such as wrongful death or manslaughter due to his reckless senseless behavior that resulted in a death that never would have occurred otherwise.

Half of the polarized audience who's already made up its mind on this case one way or the other is going to protest the court's decision either way. If the rule of law in this country is avoiding protests, we have no rule of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have seen thisd a type f apartment complex. Meaning the sidewalks and grass is comuniul property, anyone liv ing there can go anywhere they want.

If you turn back and tell te guy, your going to have trouble. It is your fault not his if you get hurt. That is the problem inthis case, 'we only have one side of the story. He had wounds consistant with his story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm at my door and I turn around to see some stranger following me up to it, I'm going to confront him and defend my property, including gripping my own firearm should I be carrying it at the time. Get off my lawn. That's just common sense. It's a lapse in common sense and a double standard to say that someone can pursue you onto your own property and you can't even stand on it and confront him there, you have to go inside and lock the door. If laws were written in that way people would be forced into total dependence on police.

In this country we encourage, practice and protect civil liberties like self defense. If that's Zimmerman's alibi he will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. At the least, he looks guilty to me of some lesser charge such as wrongful death or manslaughter due to his reckless senseless behavior that resulted in a death that never would have occurred otherwise.

Half of the polarized audience who's already made up its mind on this case one way or the other is going to protest the court's decision either way. If the rule of law in this country is avoiding protests, we have no rule of law.

The only protests will be if he is found not guilty. But, the fix is in. You'll get your pound of flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.