(05-23-2013, 05:24 PM)Adub Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 04:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: It doesn't matter if George was the aggressor. The Florida law is clear on that issue.

You can all hate George all you want, but the law - and physical evidence - is on his side.

Zimmerman had to use every reasonable means to escape before using deadly force.

Incorrect, Castle Doctrine says you can "Stand Your Ground" you no longer are required to run.

(05-23-2013, 05:57 PM)username Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 04:54 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: True, someone kicking your ass and you can say you in fear for your life all you got to do is say so. Even if you started the fight.

If you're a man pussy.

Also true

(05-23-2013, 05:59 PM)Duchess Wrote:

How come I never see anyone saying that if you follow someone in a stealth like manner you deserve what you get? It's not okay to do that and when you are confronted by the person you're following you pull a gun. That is not okay with me. I'd like to beat the snot out of George myself, I'd like to make him cry like the pansyass lil' bitch he is.

Following someone in a stealthy creepy manner is apparently not illegal, beating the shit out of the stealthy one can get you shot.
That said I would have beat Z's ass had it been me and no way in hell would I allow him access to a weapon.

(05-23-2013, 10:40 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 05:24 PM)Adub Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 04:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: It doesn't matter if George was the aggressor. The Florida law is clear on that issue.

You can all hate George all you want, but the law - and physical evidence - is on his side.

Zimmerman had to use every reasonable means to escape before using deadly force.

Incorrect, Castle Doctrine says you can "Stand Your Ground" you no longer are required to run.

Castle Doctrine presumes you're protecting your home. SYG says your home is where ever you are (as I understand it). Still, I've said this over and over again, who was standing their ground? You have a guy stealthily stalking you, without identifying himself or knowing WHY he's following you around a neighborhood...wasn't Trayvon just as entitled to stand his ground and confront his pursuer? Trayvon was standing his ground. Tell me why that argument doesn't fit. Please.

(05-23-2013, 08:07 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Fair enough, but understand that he was legally able to carry the gun. Also, the law I posted earlier makes clear that even if you bring it all on yourself and are a total douche, you are legally allowed the right to self-defense if you believe you are in danger of death or imminent harm.

That will be the claim George makes as his defense. SYG probably won't even come up.

That's not an accurate statement of the law you posted or its application to this case, Jim.

The law that you posted requires:
(a)...the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

If George is able to convince a jury that he was in fear of great bodily harm or death when faced with another male's fists, he still has to convince them that he exhausted every reasonable means to escape before the shooting can be considered self defense according to the law you posted.

You posted upthread that Trayvon had no injuries from George other than the bullet wound.
There is no evidence that George attempted to flee the scene, no signs of punching, no signs of kicking, no signs of biting... If your statement about Trayvon being untouched by George is true, then an argument can be made that there is no evidence that George exhausted all reasonable means to escape danger before shooting Trayvon.

For various reasons, not limited to interpretation of how the law applies to this case, there are different opinions about how things may have gone down. Good mix of views and exchanges.

You said:
...it is stunning to me how many here can see no other version of how it went down.

You and a couple of others have been as adamant in your insistence that George did nothing wrong as Adub and some others have been in expressing their strong opinions that George is a liar when it comes to the self defense claim, or is otherwise in the wrong. And, some of us are firm in our opinions that it's too early to make a decision. So, don't feel left out, you're just as stunning as many!!

(05-23-2013, 10:41 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 05:57 PM)username Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 04:54 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: True, someone kicking your ass and you can say you in fear for your life all you got to do is say so. Even if you started the fight.

If you're a man pussy.

Also true

Thank you. I doubt you would have pulled your gun in similar circumstances. I think you would have fought it out leaving your gun as a last resort. I don't think that was true for George.

(05-23-2013, 11:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-23-2013, 08:07 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Fair enough, but understand that he was legally able to carry the gun. Also, the law I posted earlier makes clear that even if you bring it all on yourself and are a total douche, you are legally allowed the right to self-defense if you believe you are in danger of death or imminent harm.

That will be the claim George makes as his defense. SYG probably won't even come up.

That's not an accurate statement of the law you posted or its application to this case, Jim.

The law that you posted requires:
(a)...the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

If George is able to convince a jury that he was in fear of great bodily harm or death when faced with another male's fists, he still has to convince them that he exhausted every reasonable means to escape before the shooting can be considered self defense according to the law you posted.

You posted upthread that Trayvon had no injuries from George other than the bullet wound.
There is no evidence that George attempted to flee the scene, no signs of punching, no signs of kicking, no signs of biting... If your statement about Trayvon being untouched by George is true, then an argument can be made that there is no evidence that George exhausted all reasonable means to escape danger before shooting Trayvon.

For various reasons, not limited to interpretation of how the law applies to this case, there are different opinions about how things may have gone down. Good mix of views and exchanges.

You said:
...it is stunning to me how many here can see no other version of how it went down.

You and a couple of others have been as adamant in your insistence that George did nothing wrong as Adub and some others have been in expressing their strong opinions that George is a liar when it comes to the self defense claim or otherwise in the wrong. And, some of us are firm in our opinions that it's too early to make a decision. So, don't feel left out, you're just as stunning as many!!

Wrong. As I said, I really don't give a shit. I've played the other side of the argument because everyone wants to lynch the butterball. My criticism is leveled at those insistent that there is no possibility that Zimmerman is innocent. Period.

As to no injuries on Martin... IIRC Zimmerman said he was punched and knocked down, Martin jumped on top of him, started slamming his head into the ground. At some point a struggle for the gun occurred, and Zimmerman fired. I'm not sure how Zimmerman was supposed to escape or inflict injuries to Martin while being almost beaten unconscious, or while struggling to maintain control of the weapon. Maybe he had no chance to escape, so he couldn't make any attempt to? He'll have to prove it, but its plausible.

What I stated regardiing the law was accurate. Your interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect.

(05-23-2013, 11:56 PM)Jimbone Wrote: Wrong. As I said, I really don't give a shit. I've played the other side of the argument because everyone wants to lynch the butterball. My criticism is leveled at those insistent that there is no possibility that Zimmerman is innocent. Period.

As to no injuries on Martin... IIRC Zimmerman said he was punched and knocked down, Martin jumped on top of him, started slamming his head into the ground. At some point a struggle for the gun occurred, and Zimmerman fired. I'm not sure how Zimmerman was supposed to escape or inflict injuries to Martin while being almost beaten unconscious, or while struggling to maintain control of the weapon. Maybe he had no chance to escape, so he couldn't make any attempt to? He'll have to prove it, but its plausible.

What I stated regardiing the law was accurate. Your interpretation of what I wrote is incorrect.

Bull.shit. You've refused from the get-go to acknowledge that George STALKED Trayvon. Poor George. HotD has tried to show you both sides of the argument and yet you insist on defending Zimmerman without hearing the evidence. You're a close minded bastard. You still haven't answered my question about TRAYVON'S right to stand his ground. If someone is sneakily following you around, do you have a right to confront them and even engage them physically if you're fearful for your life? Huh?

(05-24-2013, 12:14 AM)username Wrote: Bull.shit. You've refused from the get-go to acknowledge that George STALKED Trayvon. Poor George. HotD has tried to show you both sides of the argument and yet you insist on defending Zimmerman without hearing the evidence. You're a close minded bastard. You still haven't answered my question about TRAYVON'S right to stand his ground. If someone is sneakily following you around, do you have a right to confront them and even engage them physically if you're fearful for your life? Huh?

Yeah answer the question jimboner you fucknut.

If you are being stalked by an armed rent-a-cop do you have the right to stand your ground?

If not why not?

No, according to Jimbone and some others around here, Trayvon standing his grounds meant that he was a stoned, thug violent killer whose parents are at fault because they allowed him to walk around after dark with a bag of candy.

That kid is the victim, not George & the defense is looking for dirt on the murdered teenager in order to discredit him in the eyes of the jury, in a sense making it seem like T deserved to be shot through the heart. Fuckers.

Nauseating really.

I know the defence have a job to do for their client but....

Some people seem to be saying if you are armed you have a right to stand your ground but if you are unarmed you don't? That dog don't hunt and neither does the theory that he was paranoid because he smoked weed. That just sounds like desperately grasping at straws to me to make the victim sound responsible for his own death.

In this case the victim WASN'T paranoid he WAS being followed.

(05-23-2013, 10:36 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: The kid jumped his ass and was beating the shit out of him, thug style, just wailing, no proper attack strategy. Z got his weapon and probably legaly put a stop to it.

Well unlike you Martin probably wasn't properly trained in the art of Kung Fu so he had to resort to "thug style" fighting. Or had he just taken a women's self defense class he could have poked Zimmerman's eyes out and flipped his fat ass over his shoulder avoiding all this nonsense.

The reasoning I dislike the parents is/was because of the whole race issue they made this into, I do not believe it was Zimmerman that brought the race factor into this. (if your talking about the 911 tape, that was already discussed and it was the operating asking for a description.) The whole black panther parties, and Rev Whatever his name is got involved it turned me off immediately.

Did GZ following Martin, YES. Did GZ confront Martin, YES. Do we know exactly what happened after this, NO, OTHER then the gunshot, NO. Its all speculation. Its one persons story, and version of events.

Did GZ have a right to confront Martin, Depends. Depends on if he was calm or an asshole, IMO.

I do not think GZ is a victim, and I do not think I ever said that on here honestly. I just think that there is a portion of this that we will NEVER KNOW. Because its one liars version of the events. NO ONE actually saw what took place.

(05-24-2013, 09:21 AM)LytoMe Wrote: Did GZ have a right to confront Martin, Depends. Depends on if he was calm or an asshole, IMO.

How do you figure it depends? GZ was in his truck and Martin was walking. The cops told GZ to stop following him and he didn't listen. Unless the kid was robbing an old lady on the street corner he had absolutely no reason to confront him.

The question is if you are being physically attacked by a teenager who is smaller than you after he catches you stalking him is popping a cap in his ass an appropriate and measured response?

(05-24-2013, 09:32 AM)sally Wrote: Unless the kid was robbing an old lady on the street corner he had absolutely no reason to confront him.

No he didn't.

(05-24-2013, 09:32 AM)sally Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 09:21 AM)LytoMe Wrote: Did GZ have a right to confront Martin, Depends. Depends on if he was calm or an asshole, IMO.

How do you figure it depends? GZ was in his truck and Martin was walking. The cops told GZ to stop following him and he didn't listen. Unless the kid was robbing an old lady on the street corner he had absolutely no reason to confront him.

Actually the "COPS" did not tell him to stop, this was a 911 dispatcher. They are not police officers, they are dispatchers. They can advise a person what to do, but the person does not legally have to listen to what they are advised.

(05-24-2013, 09:41 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 09:32 AM)sally Wrote: Unless the kid was robbing an old lady on the street corner he had absolutely no reason to confront him.

No he didn't.

I agree to that, I do not think he had ANY reason to GO up to him and confront him. BUT can you say with ABSOLUTE certainty what happened after GZ got off the phone with the 911 dispatcher other then the gun shot? NO. We do not know EXACTLY what happened other then what GZ stated. And the gun shot. IT would all be speculation.

(05-24-2013, 09:32 AM)sally Wrote:

(05-24-2013, 09:21 AM)LytoMe Wrote: Did GZ have a right to confront Martin, Depends. Depends on if he was calm or an asshole, IMO.

How do you figure it depends? GZ was in his truck and Martin was walking. The cops told GZ to stop following him and he didn't listen. Unless the kid was robbing an old lady on the street corner he had absolutely no reason to confront him.

This is where you and I disagree.

I don't think GZ actually ever confronted T. Yes, he was 'stalking' him as many here like to say. I prefer 'following at a distance' ON FOOT. He's now out of his truck as he muttered 'these guys always get away'.

Thinking he's lost him Z is now returning to his truck. This is where T jumps him, knocking him to the ground.

At this point, with someone on top of him, I could understand Z going for his gun.

IMO, this makes T the actual aggressor in this case.

I've said it before in this thread. If you're going to bumrush somebody, make sure they're unarmed, or take their weapon from them.