mnealtx 0 #1251 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteZimmerman was on the ground with nowhere to retreat to in any case, Unproven, Possible, but not proven. Eyewitness reports and police reports annotating the wet jacket and grass.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #1252 April 12, 2012 >Now,if the gunman were say arms length away,then going for their gun to >disarm them would be a better bet. Agreed. And in the resulting scuffle you could see some injuries. >But just like most of the post on this case,it is all conjecture. Also agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #1253 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote(Just replying to last post in thread) The attorney should definitely plead Stand Your Ground. This is essentially a free bite at the apple, as it is a pre-trial motion and a hearing before the judge. If the judge buys the story than Z goes free without a trial (and, as I read the law, the state has to pay for any expense he has already incurred to defend himself). There is no downside, as if he loses at the pre-trial hearing he just pleads self-defense at the trial which is what he would have done anyway. How is that more applicable than the self-defense? SYG only removes a duty to retreat - Zimmerman was on the ground with nowhere to retreat to in any case, so SYG doesn't even come into play in that regard. Well, the case law is pretty undeveloped so it is hard to make many definitive declarations about SYG. Except that the conditions are that 1. he was at a place where he had a legal right to be 2. was reasonably in fear of his life and 3. not meeting one of the disqualifying conditions (such as being in the act of committing a felony). As best I understand it, Zimmermann is asserting he met all of those conditions. Stand Your Ground, as best I can understand it, should be thought of as a sub-category of self-defense, not a separate category. However, procedurally it is given preferential treatment in Florida courts as being heard as a pre-trial motion. Again, there is no downside to pleading SYG at a pre-trial motion. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #1254 April 12, 2012 >Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #1255 April 12, 2012 QuoteEyewitness reports Disputed and there are conflicting reports. Quotepolice reports annotating the wet jacket and grass. That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #1256 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteOh, goody, another made-up scenario that has nothing to do with the case, since Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand. Says who? Blues, Dave Who says he was, besides Bill? And *IF* he was, why the HELL would Martin come BACK and confront him instead of breaking the sound barrier getting the FUCK out of Dodge? If Zimmerman had gun in hand, how did Martin get the opportunity to beat on him for almost a minute, instead of Zimmerman shooting him right at the start of the fight? Serious logic fails in that scenario. Who says he was is irrelevent. The only person who says he wasn't is Zimmerman, and he would have cause to say that either way, so his statement can be discounted. The part about them spending some time fighting before the shot is logical and well-made, a refreshing change from all the arguments that rely on the statements of a person worried about his potential legal troubles."I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #1257 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteZimmerman was on the ground with nowhere to retreat to in any case, Unproven, Possible, but not proven. Ah There is a witness that says they were both on the ground I dont think this part is very questionable Exactly what was happening on the ground is the debatable part"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #1258 April 12, 2012 Zimmerman never claimed stand your ground. The media did. Zimmerman claimed self defense. (depending on which story you read of course) Plus the eye witness seeing Zimmerman being attacked. Also Travon Martin's father clearly stated "that's not my son" when he heard the 911 call with someone yelling for help. (he later recanted that story) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #1259 April 12, 2012 QuoteOne thing that confuses me, and in all the replies in this thread I don't think I've seen it, is why shoot to kill? I realise the torso (where I believe M was shot) is the biggest target and while you're busy having your head hit on the pavement (if we're to believe the witnesses and Z) you might not take time to aim, but surely at that close range it'd be just as easy to go for an arm or leg shot which would have incapacitated M and avoided this controversy No. Criminals have murdered law enforcement officers after being fatally wounded by gunfire. Consider the FBI shoot out with bank robbers which led them to trade their 9mm pistols for more powerful guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout When deadly force is justified you shoot at the center of mass until the threat stops. If it's not justified you don't use a lethal weapon at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #1260 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell there we go then Some one who knows exactly what happened that day So No more debate is needed Thanks for the insight (no need to waste any more time here) I made no claim to know what went on, but I am saying that even if what Zimmerman claims is true on the basic level (that he followed the kid and was was then hit), the actions of assaulting him would be completely justified. And that chances are most people would do the same thing, either run or try to defend themselves. Zimmans story is that Trayvon came to him as he returned to his truck I wonder what Martin's story is. Oh, he's dead, shot by GZ. I guess he is unable to "cooperate". Which is exactly why the process is supposed to be free of the kind of crap you throw out in threads like this Be specific. What in particular is the "crap"? Stuff like Quote Well, we don't know at this point what the admissible evidence will be, and how an impartial jury (if such can ever be found now) will weigh it. Is that what you call "crap"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #1261 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteStill in the act of chasing Martin? Is *that* why he told the dispatcher "I don't know where this kid is"? That was minutes earlier. For a conflicting account, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403 QuoteSanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up. "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.' "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him. "At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.' QuoteQuoteUnlike you, I'll readily admit that my theory could be wrong, and I'm glad a jury will have the opportunity to weigh the evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to grant automatic infallibility to someone who says the magic words "self defense", accepting anything and everything they say as beyond reproach, so long as their opponent is dead. Wrong. I discount rhys-level leaps to scenarios that require suicidal stupidity or superman x-ray vision on Martin's part. Maybe you should try it sometime. Your idea of suicidal stupidity is not shared by everyone. Personally, if I'm in a position to disarm or take out assailant, I consider moving in to be safer than running. I started that as a kid, when the older, bigger bully chasing me had almost caught me, I dropped to the ground tripping him, then got up and ran the other way. I continued it as an adult when someone pulled a knife on me from about 10' away and later had to give said knife to the police, and the guy was convicted of murdering someone with it the night before he pullled it on me. The guy who pulled a gun on me at a party, from across the room...I also took it away. We ended up calling an ambulance for him rather than the cops, as I think he learned his lesson. Bottom line: When an assailant steps up his game, going on offense may be better than defense. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1262 April 12, 2012 Quote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1263 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteEyewitness reports Disputed and there are conflicting reports. In what reports did the fight take place standing up, then? QuoteQuotepolice reports annotating the wet jacket and grass. That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #1264 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman. Irony score 10/10 Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1265 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh, goody, another made-up scenario that has nothing to do with the case, since Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand. Says who? Blues, Dave Who says he was, besides Bill? And *IF* he was, why the HELL would Martin come BACK and confront him instead of breaking the sound barrier getting the FUCK out of Dodge? If Zimmerman had gun in hand, how did Martin get the opportunity to beat on him for almost a minute, instead of Zimmerman shooting him right at the start of the fight? Serious logic fails in that scenario. Who says he was is irrelevent. Then your question was equally irrelevant - the knife cuts both ways. QuoteThe only person who says he wasn't is Zimmerman, and he would have cause to say that either way, so his statement can be discounted. Why? Is there countervailing evidence to put his statement in question? Some witness that shows him with Martin at gunpoint before the actual fight? QuoteThe part about them spending some time fighting before the shot is logical and well-made, a refreshing change from all the arguments that rely on the statements of a person worried about his potential legal troubles. As opposed to suppositions not supported by any evidence or statements from the family?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1266 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteStill in the act of chasing Martin? Is *that* why he told the dispatcher "I don't know where this kid is"? That was minutes earlier. For a conflicting account, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403 QuoteSanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up. "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.' "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him. "At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.' So, Zimmerman gets the *rest* of the way back to his truck, Martin approaches him at the truck, they have the supposed conversation, Martin runs off *again*, Zimmerman pursues *again*, they have words, the fight starts and then Zimmerman finally ends it with a gunshot - all in the 2-3 minutes between the end of the phone phone call with the dispatcher and the arrival of the police? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test, either. QuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike you, I'll readily admit that my theory could be wrong, and I'm glad a jury will have the opportunity to weigh the evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to grant automatic infallibility to someone who says the magic words "self defense", accepting anything and everything they say as beyond reproach, so long as their opponent is dead. Wrong. I discount rhys-level leaps to scenarios that require suicidal stupidity or superman x-ray vision on Martin's part. Maybe you should try it sometime. Your idea of suicidal stupidity is not shared by everyone. Personally, if I'm in a position to disarm or take out assailant, I consider moving in to be safer than running. So, you've got someone running after you waving a gun, and you're going to stand there and let him get to his most accurate range and then attempt a disarm/counterattack? Certainly sounds like suicidal stupidity to me. QuoteI started that as a kid, when the older, bigger bully chasing me had almost caught me, I dropped to the ground tripping him, then got up and ran the other way. Entirely different situation than Martin/Zimmerman, where contact was already broken. QuoteI continued it as an adult when someone pulled a knife on me from about 10' away and later had to give said knife to the police, and the guy was convicted of murdering someone with it the night before he pullled it on me. Yippee for you - that doesn't mean that Martin had that mindset, that training or was in that sort of situation. QuoteThe guy who pulled a gun on me at a party, from across the room...I also took it away. We ended up calling an ambulance for him rather than the cops, as I think he learned his lesson. Bottom line: When an assailant steps up his game, going on offense may be better than defense. Which is what Zimmerman did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1267 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman. Irony score 10/10 Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened. Like where he states Zimmerman was chasing him with a gun? Like where he states that Zimmerman said "time to die" to Martin? Like where he *KEEPS* mis-stating the law even after the statutes have been quoted? Since my comments are pretty well supported by information that is already in the public domain, how about you provide the evidence supporting bill's version, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 333 #1268 April 12, 2012 Quote[replay] That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight. Please provide a link to this. I must be remembering another witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #1269 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteBottom line: When an assailant steps up his game, going on offense may be better than defense. Which is what Zimmerman did. Agreed, but it also seems to me its what they both did. The result probably would have been the most interesting if Martin also had a gun, but I bet their families wish neither of them had. Zimmerman shouldn't have chased Martin. Martin shouldn't have hit Zimmerman. Both did dumb things that any reasonable person would consider threatening. I wish they'd just settled it with a good old fashioned fist fight...they'd both have been healed up and on with their lives a bit wiser for it weeks ago. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1270 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote[replay] That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight. Please provide a link to this. I must be remembering another witness. link "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said. link In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1262 April 12, 2012 Quote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1263 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteEyewitness reports Disputed and there are conflicting reports. In what reports did the fight take place standing up, then? QuoteQuotepolice reports annotating the wet jacket and grass. That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #1264 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman. Irony score 10/10 Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1265 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh, goody, another made-up scenario that has nothing to do with the case, since Zimmerman wasn't chasing Martin down the street, gun in hand. Says who? Blues, Dave Who says he was, besides Bill? And *IF* he was, why the HELL would Martin come BACK and confront him instead of breaking the sound barrier getting the FUCK out of Dodge? If Zimmerman had gun in hand, how did Martin get the opportunity to beat on him for almost a minute, instead of Zimmerman shooting him right at the start of the fight? Serious logic fails in that scenario. Who says he was is irrelevent. Then your question was equally irrelevant - the knife cuts both ways. QuoteThe only person who says he wasn't is Zimmerman, and he would have cause to say that either way, so his statement can be discounted. Why? Is there countervailing evidence to put his statement in question? Some witness that shows him with Martin at gunpoint before the actual fight? QuoteThe part about them spending some time fighting before the shot is logical and well-made, a refreshing change from all the arguments that rely on the statements of a person worried about his potential legal troubles. As opposed to suppositions not supported by any evidence or statements from the family?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1266 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteStill in the act of chasing Martin? Is *that* why he told the dispatcher "I don't know where this kid is"? That was minutes earlier. For a conflicting account, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403 QuoteSanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up. "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.' "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him. "At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.' So, Zimmerman gets the *rest* of the way back to his truck, Martin approaches him at the truck, they have the supposed conversation, Martin runs off *again*, Zimmerman pursues *again*, they have words, the fight starts and then Zimmerman finally ends it with a gunshot - all in the 2-3 minutes between the end of the phone phone call with the dispatcher and the arrival of the police? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test, either. QuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike you, I'll readily admit that my theory could be wrong, and I'm glad a jury will have the opportunity to weigh the evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to grant automatic infallibility to someone who says the magic words "self defense", accepting anything and everything they say as beyond reproach, so long as their opponent is dead. Wrong. I discount rhys-level leaps to scenarios that require suicidal stupidity or superman x-ray vision on Martin's part. Maybe you should try it sometime. Your idea of suicidal stupidity is not shared by everyone. Personally, if I'm in a position to disarm or take out assailant, I consider moving in to be safer than running. So, you've got someone running after you waving a gun, and you're going to stand there and let him get to his most accurate range and then attempt a disarm/counterattack? Certainly sounds like suicidal stupidity to me. QuoteI started that as a kid, when the older, bigger bully chasing me had almost caught me, I dropped to the ground tripping him, then got up and ran the other way. Entirely different situation than Martin/Zimmerman, where contact was already broken. QuoteI continued it as an adult when someone pulled a knife on me from about 10' away and later had to give said knife to the police, and the guy was convicted of murdering someone with it the night before he pullled it on me. Yippee for you - that doesn't mean that Martin had that mindset, that training or was in that sort of situation. QuoteThe guy who pulled a gun on me at a party, from across the room...I also took it away. We ended up calling an ambulance for him rather than the cops, as I think he learned his lesson. Bottom line: When an assailant steps up his game, going on offense may be better than defense. Which is what Zimmerman did.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #1267 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman. Irony score 10/10 Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened. Like where he states Zimmerman was chasing him with a gun? Like where he states that Zimmerman said "time to die" to Martin? Like where he *KEEPS* mis-stating the law even after the statutes have been quoted? Since my comments are pretty well supported by information that is already in the public domain, how about you provide the evidence supporting bill's version, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 333 #1268 April 12, 2012 Quote[replay] That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight. Please provide a link to this. I must be remembering another witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1267 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back, >on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman. Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman. Irony score 10/10 Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened. Like where he states Zimmerman was chasing him with a gun? Like where he states that Zimmerman said "time to die" to Martin? Like where he *KEEPS* mis-stating the law even after the statutes have been quoted? Since my comments are pretty well supported by information that is already in the public domain, how about you provide the evidence supporting bill's version, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #1268 April 12, 2012 Quote[replay] That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight. Please provide a link to this. I must be remembering another witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #1269 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteBottom line: When an assailant steps up his game, going on offense may be better than defense. Which is what Zimmerman did. Agreed, but it also seems to me its what they both did. The result probably would have been the most interesting if Martin also had a gun, but I bet their families wish neither of them had. Zimmerman shouldn't have chased Martin. Martin shouldn't have hit Zimmerman. Both did dumb things that any reasonable person would consider threatening. I wish they'd just settled it with a good old fashioned fist fight...they'd both have been healed up and on with their lives a bit wiser for it weeks ago. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1270 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote[replay] That doesn't prove somebody was on his chest beating him. Doesn't even prove anybody was in the vicinity. Supports the eyewitness reports of the fight. Please provide a link to this. I must be remembering another witness. link "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said. link In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #1271 April 12, 2012 >Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . . Why? She did her job. >you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of >Zimmerman. Hey look! A strawman! Tell us what it looks like and what it said. We're dying to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1272 April 12, 2012 Quote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . . Why? She did her job. >you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of >Zimmerman. Hey look! A strawman! Tell us what it looks like and what it said. We're dying to know. You're just *NOW* figuring out that you've been dragging Ray Bolger behind you this entire thread?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #1273 April 12, 2012 Fascinating! So we have someone dragging a guy named Ray Bolger; good start. Please continue with your creation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1274 April 12, 2012 QuoteFascinating! So we have someone dragging a guy named Ray Bolger; good start. Please continue with your creation. Scenario: "Does a guy with a gun who's coming after you count?" "So if a guy came at you with a gun" "And you'd also probably defend yourself if an armed stranger came up to you while you were walking back from the store and threatened you. " "(Hint there - the reason Zimmerman is wearing an orange suit in his pictures isn't because he likes orange.) " "You are walking along the street and a guy walks up to you. He tells you "time to die, motherfucker. Turn around." and he goes for his gun." "If the kid assaulted the man after the man threatened him with a gun, then that was a justified response." Guilt: ""neighborhood watch" guy would end up killing their son as he returned from buying Skittles. " "Cutting one's face seems a small price to pay to escape a long jail sentence. " Say hi to Ray for us.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #1275 April 12, 2012 Once the decision is made to shoot, you need to shoot to kill. Sometimes shooting people in non vital areas just agitates them and they then take you weapon and don't show you the same common courtesy you tried to show them. I have to beg to differ here. The only legal and moral justification for shooting when attacked is to stop the attack, and the same is true if using lethal force to halt an attack on an innocent. The difference is significant; the purpose is to incapacitate, not kill. Additionally, if someone shoots to maim they are entirely in the wrong. If you have enough control of the situation that you can selectively shoot a knee or hip instead of center of mass, you have enough control of the situation that you do not need to shoot. One should view a concealed firearm as one would an emergency parachute. For one thing, it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, since when you need it you need it badly. For another thing, if you actually need it you are in pretty bad shape to begin with, and it provides no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome. Another analogy is between CCWs and AADs. Only an idiot would enter into a situation where they were reasonably sure that that either was necessary for survival. If Z had used pepper spray or a taser instead of lethal force, he would not be as likely to have the legal troubles he now faces. Since he put himself in a position where he may (or may not) have been subject to an ass-kicking, it was his actions that resulted in his further decision to resort to lethal force - a decision for which he will be held responsible. If he was truly in danger of immediate death, I suppose being on the green side of the sod in any form is preferable. If he was simply being thrashed for being an overbearing busybody, his response was entirely unwarranted and he should not expect a lot of sympathy for his current straits. All things being considered, if he had left well enough alone and a cop then had reason to shoot the kid, the squad car would likely have video of the event and it would be easier to tell if it was justifiable. Even when armed, the best defense is found in Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail - "Run away! Run away!" BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
