Florida Teen Shot

[normiss 800]

One of the speaking points we're hearing by local "legal consultants" and their interpretation of Florida law is that we are not legally required to follow a 911 dispatcher's directives.
They are nothing more than dispatchers or operators.

Whether or not Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin epends on a legal definition of "follow" by a neighborhood watch leader. Or a legal interpretation of "follow" when you see a stranger wandering around your neighborhood and you call 911 to report it and try to keep an eye on the guy.
Or profile someone I suppose.
Or pursue someone.
Or hunt someone down.

This case has SO many angles and issues.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>You assume that Z was an attacker.
>Wrong assumption, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, it is wrong. So is the assumption that "Z was not an attacker" - which is the assumption you made.

I don't know how you got that????
Don't tell me ....you learned mind-reading somewhere in your dark past.

Either that or your engineering degree didn't require reading comprehension?

But your last line IS correct."Neither is provable".

Are you one that requires Z to be the attacker in order to support the argument against SYG? If not, what else do you have to support that argument?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,991]

>Don't tell me ....you learned mind-reading somewhere in your dark past.

I said that you cannot make either assumption, since I cannot read minds. I am apparently just about the only one in this thread who cannot, which puts me at a severe disadvantage.

>Either that or your engineering degree didn't require reading
>comprehension?

Skitt's Law applies here.

>Are you one that requires Z to be the attacker in order to support the
>argument against SYG?

?? No, Either one might be the attacker; thus either one (or both) might use SYG to justify violence against their attacker.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Here's one:
You assume that Z was an attacker.

Yep. Because Z was tailing and following.
--------------------------
Nope. Following does not equate to attacking.
--------------------------


If I'm walking around a neighborhood and somebody is following me around, I'm going to feel threatened. How about you?
--------------------------
Maybe, maybe not. If I did, I'd be doing something to lose the tail. Running home comes to mind.
--------------------------


Nothing suggests that TM was doing ANYTHING. But we have a phone call from GM where he's telling the dispatcher that he's following TM and the dispatcher tells him not to do that.
--------------------------
So? Is THAT what sets you off on Z's guilt? Really?
--------------------------


But Florida law allows a person who feels threatened to stand his ground.
--------------------------
Are you sure about that? Maybe you are missing some qualifier and restriction information there?
--------------------------


And the facts all indicate that no matter where TM went, GM followed. And was armed while he was doing it.
--------------------------
So.now you're confusing "stalker" with "attacker".

--------------------------


GM was the attacker.
--------------------------
So you missed this: No, "follower" doesn't mean "attacker".
OK. You are a lawyer. It's your in skill set to twist.
Following equates to attacking?
Again, no, "follower" doesn't mean "attacker".

--------------------------

Quote

Here's another:
You assume that whatever force TM was using was non-lethal. You don't know that.

Sure I do. Looks like GM lived and suffered from injuries that were not life threatening.
--------------------------
Good thing Z shot him before he got himself dead. You wouldn't be able to assume that then, right?
No, you do not know.
--------------------------


I have had a dude pick a fight with me .... to myself acting in self defense with no doubt.
--------------------------
So...you were the attacker, eh?

Nice story. Not relevant. You know the circumstance of your event. You do not know the circumstances of this one enough to be able to relate the two.
--------------------------


You don't stand your ground by approaching all over a neighborhood.

Quote

You said TM stood his ground. Not so. By all accounts, he approached

Okay. Here's the deal: did TM already feel threatened? We don't know. But there is an inference that it's what happened. Again, the kid is dead.
--------------------------
No deal. It doesn't matter what TM felt. Did he go back to confront Z or not?
--------------------------

Quote

No confrontation would have happened had TM continued on his innocent way and not approached Z.

No confrontation would have happened had GM continued on his innocent way and not approached TM. In matters of self-defense, a key question is, "Who started it?" Another matter is, "Who elevated it?"
--------------------------
You say Z approached TM? Where the heck do you get THAT from?
--------------------------


GM started it. GM elevated it to deadly force. Fact.

--------------------------
Well, one "fact" out of two ain't bad.

OK...so you believe it's all Z's fault because he volunteered for neighborhood watch duty and trailed a suspect around the neighborhood. Damn them watchers! Why don't they mind their own damned business.

OK, so you're set in your assumptions and/or delusions and you are welcome to them.


Damn! People are so quick to convict on emotions and assumptions. And you think Z will get a fair trial?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I said that you cannot make either assumption, since I cannot read minds.

Coulda fooled me by saying I made the assumption you assigned to me.

Quote

I am apparently just about the only one in this thread who cannot,

Ummmm....really?

Quote

>Either that or your engineering degree didn't require reading
>comprehension?

Skitt's Law applies here.

You assume there was an error. You didn't read the question as a question. There ya go!

Quote

?? No, Either one might be the attacker; thus either one (or both) might use SYG to justify violence against their attacker.

True. Based on the idea that we just don't know enough about what really happened to be able to say either way, we agree, Bill.

Based on the information that has been released and published, not so much.

(esited to add: I retract the agreement comment. You and I do not agree. I went back and read some of your previous posts. They do not agree with what you are now saying.)

Again, so many so willing to so quickly convict....

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Try finding someone in a neighborhood and follow the person around. See what happens. For big fun, try it with a woman. See how she responds.

Sane people would:
a) run
b) run then call the cops
c) hide
d) hide then call the cops
e) run and hide
e) run and hide and then call the cops

Texans would:
a) pull out their weapon and blow your ass away and walk away passively



What did TM do? You tell me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

But I'll restate my thoughts:
(1) TM was minding his own business
(2) GM was minting TM's business
(3) GM follows TM
(4) TM stands his ground using less-than-lethal force
(5) GM shoots him,

An attacker cannot provoke a response and then increase to deadly force. Not in my mind.

The point that seems to be lost in the "stand your ground" is that the initial aggressor cannot stand his. GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground. GM shot him.

I have not heard or read a single fact that contradicts this.

Here's one:
You assume that Z was an attacker.
Wrong assumption, wouldn't you agree?
No, "follower" doesn't mean "attacker".

Here's another:
You assume that whatever force TM was using was non-lethal. You don't know that.

Here's another:
You said TM stood his ground. Not so. By all accounts, he approached. That's not standing your ground.
No confrontation would have happened had TM continued on his innocent way and not approached Z.

Quote

"....nor the people in between have bothered to get their subjective passions out of it and look at it with reason and logic."

Something about glass houses here......

+1

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

GM was the aggressor. TM stood his ground.

How do you know this?

From the recorded phone call where he was following TM. That's called an act of aggression that's easily perceived as a threat.

Try finding someone in a neighborhood and follow the person around. See what happens. For big fun, try it with a woman. See how she responds.

following is not attacking. One starts with an A and the other with a F....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Wow I read most your post. You normally seem to offer a fairly well thought idea, without making a factual statement unless you can back it up..

You have no proof what so ever to back this up. You seem to have lost the ability to understand proof. Proof. Following someone isn't proof that you started a fight.

What happen to logical Lawrocket??????

You're correct. It isn't "proof." I mentioned "inference." Of course, "inference" can be led to different things.

I'm trying to make the point that "stand your ground" has two sides. Who is the aggressor? It's not an easy issue.

My interpretation is that TM was minding his own business. We don't know who threw the first punch. I suspect it was TM. BUT - I can also absolutely understand how TM may have felt threatened and felt the need to defend himself.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that TM used or even threatened deadly force. I do see pretty convincing evidence that GM used deadly force. GM is going to have to prove that he not only had an honest fear for his life, but that such a fear was REASONABLE. That's the hard part.

Self-Defense is a lot more complicated than it seems. There are rules against elevating the level of force. Use more than is warranted and it does not work.

I can say, however, that the first inquiry is "to whom does stand-your-ground" apply? There is an argument that TM was the one entitled to stand his ground.

Proof? Inference is part of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mirage62 0]

If some followed me and I punch you and beat your head on the ground I can infer that I was fearing for my life reasonably.

The act of following someone isn't justification for beating that person up.

You sound fairly capable of defending yourself (with your fist) perhaps GZ wasn't as capable as you are and the fact that you have deducted that he started the fight maybe is clouding your thoughts?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Yeah, why would a mind altering substance have any bearing on the case whatsoever

It perhaps also matters exactly how much weed was in his system, and what else if anything?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[normiss 800]

Who the hell is GM???

Man that's driving me nuts!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Who the hell is GM???

Man that's driving me nuts!

George Martin

[normiss 800]

Who????

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Who????

Jorge

[normiss 800]

Ah.

Mr. Zimmerman.



Details matter.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ah.

Mr. Zimmerman.



Details matter.

You were thinking of TZ?

[normiss 800]

Apparently I was.



"You have this independent witness, who had no idea what George Zimmerman was going to say to the police, say he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman hitting him (mixed martial arts) style, and I can't think of any other scenario that might justify the use of a firearm than that scenario," Hornsby said.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who the hell is GM???

GZ. I've been a bit out of it lately.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If some followed me and I punch you and beat your head on the ground I can infer that I was fearing for my life reasonably.

The act of following someone isn't justification for beating that person up.

You sound fairly capable of defending yourself (with your fist) perhaps GZ wasn't as capable as you are and the fact that you have deducted that he started the fight maybe is clouding your thoughts?

There is nothing wrong with your statement. I'm pointing out the flip side.

As a note - can anybody tell me the burden of proof on the stand-your-ground defense in Florida?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

There is nothing wrong with your statement. I'm pointing out the flip side.

As a note - can anybody tell me the burden of proof on the stand-your-ground defense in Florida?

It was posted earlier in the thread. Going off of memory here:

A SYG defense is raised at a pretrial motion before the judge. SYG confers immunity from prosecution. It is basically a free-roll, so I would think just about any attorney would assert a SYG defense.

For self-defense--the person only has to raise reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the underlying crime.

These are very generous parameters for the defense.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[linebckr83 3]

Quote

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that TM used or even threatened deadly force. I do see pretty convincing evidence that GM used deadly force.

So Zimmerman bashed his own head into the concrete hard enough to cause bleeding? I get it, to stage it like he was getting his ass kicked....

At what point did you decide that this isn't deadly force? You think someone can't die from that? We get it, you're a self-proclaimed badass so this wouldn't happen to you. But if it was me, I've seen the damage concrete can do to a brain and I have every intention of stopping someone from doing that to me....in any way possible.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that TM used or even threatened deadly force. I do see pretty convincing evidence that GM used deadly force.

So Zimmerman bashed his own head into the concrete hard enough to cause bleeding? I get it, to stage it like he was getting his ass kicked....

At what point did you decide that this isn't deadly force? You think someone can't die from that? We get it, you're a self-proclaimed badass so this wouldn't happen to you. But if it was me, I've seen the damage concrete can do to a brain and I have every intention of stopping someone from doing that to me....in any way possible.

the newly released evidence from the police has the statement from a neighbor who witnessed TM on top of GZ beating him. Then she heard the shot. She was close enough to state that the one on top was using martial arts fighting type strikes

But that does not matter I guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

the newly released evidence from the police has the statement from a neighbor who witnessed TM on top of GM beating him.

Now that GM has been introduced into this case, it's really confusing. (I think lawrocket started it, but now you're doing it too!)

[normiss 800]

Face it.
As a society we could really care less about law and the details of the evidence.
This is totally a reaction to the mob mentality.