Defense posts George Zimmerman photo from night of Trayvon Martin shooting

[JohnVictor]

Actually it does.

Who is going to enforce when words spoken are slanderous or a lie?

The government can easily make these claims as was done in Soviet Russia and China.

If you don’t desire that we head in the direction they did, then you have to allow all free speech, even when it’s a lie.

The lie itself will silence the guilty, not the government or law suits, which lawyers could care less about the truth.

Jim

**Thats the same govt you just claimed you want to be your sole protector? **

 

[JimR-OCDS]

**Thats the same govt you just claimed you want to be your sole protector? **

Where did I claim I want the government to be my sole protector?

Take your time.

Jim

 

[JohnVictor]

Where did I claim I want the government to be my sole protector?

Take your time.

Jim

“Government is responsible for enforcing the law, not armed civilians with an agenda outside of morality.”:

GZ was not protecting himself? Is it not moral to protect yourself from a Purple Lean drinking thug that adopted the Twitter name “No_Limit_Ni66a”, thats on top of you repeatedly bashing in your face, these days?

LOL

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“Government is responsible for enforcing the law, not armed civilians with an agenda outside of morality.”:

GZ was not protecting himself? Is it not moral to protect yourself from a Purple Lean drinking thug that adopted the Twitter name “No_Limit_Ni66a”, thats on top of you repeatedly bashing in your face, these days?

LOL

That is the law of the law, that the government is responsible for enforcing laws, not armed citizens. Don’t you have cops where you live?

That doesn’t mean one doesn’t have a right to protect themselves.

The issue here is, whether Zimmerman needed to protect himself, or could he have stayed put and waited for the cops to show up, when he made the 911 call and not follow Martin and end up in a scuffle.

If the prosecution shows that he could’ve just stayed put to keep from getting into a physical altercation with Martin, Zimmerman will be found guilty.

Jim

 

[JohnVictor]

That is the law of the law, that the government is responsible for enforcing laws, not armed citizens. Don’t you have cops where you live?

That doesn’t mean one doesn’t have a right to protect themselves.

The issue here is, whether Zimmerman needed to protect himself, or could he have stayed put and waited for the cops to show up, when he made the 911 call and not follow Martin and end up in a scuffle.

If the prosecution shows that he could’ve just stayed put to keep from getting into a physical altercation with Martin, Zimmerman will be found guilty.

Jim

We already know he could have “stayed put”. That’s a given. No one disputes that. It doesn’t need to be proved. But he broke no law in watching Trayvon. Or following him to see what he was up to,

The vicious assult by Trayvon was uncalled for. What the state must prove is that GZ didn’t fear great bodily harm as he was getting his head smashed in pinned to the ground.

That will not happen. The prosecution has a real loser on its hands.

 

[St_Francis]

But the two convicting parts of the 911 call are, the answer by Zimmerman that he was in fact following the suspect, and was told not to.

Zimmerman followed, answered truthfully that he was following, and the dispatcher said he did not need to do that. Zimmerman was *not *told not to follow.

Also, Trever Martin’s own call stated that he was being followed.

TRAYVON, not Trevor.

Yes, and the information about that phone comes second-hand weeks after the shooting, through a lawyer hired by Martin’s family when the event because a national cause celebre. She never contacted the police in the weeks following the shooting.

When Martin started running, he was running towards the apartment where he was staying, Why did he not go home?

Obviously, the jury is going to hear more than what we have for information in this forum, but those two issues alone could convict Zimmerman.

I don’t think so. The evidence shows Zimmerman was looking for Martin but not following him, per se. The evidence also shows that Martin could have gone home but seems not to have. And there is no evidence that Zimmerman started a physical altercation, which would have been crazy of him to do since Martin was much bigger than he. And to be honest, the start of the physical altercation is all that really matters, from a legal standpoint.

Jim

 

[Dawnia]

That is the law of the law, that the government is responsible for enforcing laws, not armed citizens. Don’t you have cops where you live?

That doesn’t mean one doesn’t have a right to protect themselves.

The issue here is, whether Zimmerman needed to protect himself, or could he have stayed put and waited for the cops to show up, when he made the 911 call and not follow Martin and end up in a scuffle.

If the prosecution shows that he could’ve just stayed put to keep from getting into a physical altercation with Martin, Zimmerman will be found guilty.

Jim

Sorry, that’s not how it works. You can keep deluding yourself all you want, but his following Martin has no impact whatsoever on whether or not this was self-defense.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sorry, that’s not how it works. You can keep deluding yourself all you want, but his following Martin has no impact whatsoever on whether or not this was self-defense.

Unless the jury believes that Zimmerman provoked the physical altercation.

Generally, under self-defense laws, you can only use lethal force when you have no other option and staying away from Martin was an option for Zimmerman.

He didn’t have to follow Martin, and the fact he did against the dispatcher’s advice, will convict him.

Again, I’m going by what has been reported by the media. The jury will have more to go on than we do.

Jim

 

[JohnVictor]

Unless the jury believes that Zimmerman provoked the physical altercation. Generally, under self-defense laws, you can only use lethal force when you have no other option and staying away from Martin was an option for Zimmerman.

He didn’t have to follow Martin, and the fact he did against the dispatcher’s advice, will convict him.

Again, I’m going by what has been reported by the media. The jury will have more to go on than we do.

Jim

You are very misinformed. He followed Martin - a stranger at night in an area that’s mutilpe break-ins recently - just like any reasonable resident might do. And again you falsely stared what the dispatcher said. She said “he dint need to”. She didn’t advise or command him not to.
GZ had every right to follow, even question or video him if he wanted to. Just like a reporter can do. When GZ turned around and went to return his truck he was vsiciousdly attacked and beaten by Trayvon.
As a Catholic do you advise that if you feel that someone is following you should attack them, and then once they are down you continue to beat them in then repeatedly smash their head into the ground

 

[Farsight001]

He didn’t have to follow Martin, and the fact he did against the dispatcher’s advice, will convict him.

This is simply wrong. for one, as others have already clearly explained, the dispatcher never actually told him not to follow. “You don’t have to do that” is not the same as “do not do that”. Furthermore, even if the dispatcher gave him advice not to follow and he did anyway, it has no legal impact on the issue.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You are very misinformed. He followed Martin - a stranger at night in an area that’s mutilpe break-ins recently - just like any reasonable resident might do. And again you falsely stared what the dispatcher said. She said “he dint need to”. She didn’t advise or command him not to.
GZ had every right to follow, even question or video him if he wanted to. Just like a reporter can do. When GZ turned around and went to return his truck he was vsiciousdly attacked and beaten by Trayvon.
As a Catholic do you advise that if you feel that someone is following you should attack them, and then once they are down you continue to beat them in then repeatedly smash their head into the ground

Martin also being an often resident of that complex, also knew about the break-ins. He may have thought that Zimmerman was one of the crooks and sought to defend himself.

Also, Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin, who is also a resident of that complex at the time.

As a Catholic, I believe self-defense is moral, but not when you could’ve made a choice to avoid a physical confrontation.

I also trained in martial arts and my teacher trained State Police. I understand self-defense laws here in my state, and how the use of force can be used against you in a court of law.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is simply wrong. for one, as others have already clearly explained, the dispatcher never actually told him not to follow. “You don’t have to do that” is not the same as “do not do that”. Furthermore, even if the dispatcher gave him advice not to follow and he did anyway, it has no legal impact on the issue.

Oh please, that’s just a play on words.

The dispatcher was in fact telling him not to follow the suspect.

Jim

 

[JohnVictor]

Martin also being an often resident of that complex, also knew about the break-ins. He may have thought that Zimmerman was one of the crooks and sought to defend himself.

No Martin was not a resident - he was visiting. But thats irrelevant.

Also, Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin, who is also a resident of that complex at the time.

Sure he had the right. He lived there and was on the black watch,

As a Catholic, I believe self-defense is moral, but not when you could’ve made a choice to avoid a physical confrontation.

So watching Martin gave Martin the right to attack him? I hope you don’t believe that.

*I also trained in martial arts and my teacher trained State Police. I understand self-defense laws here in my state, and how the use of force can be used against you in a court of law. *

Yeah… and I’m Rickson Gracie. LOL

OK… but do us a favor - review relevant FL before you post again.

**FLORIDA 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
**
FLORIDA 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Farsight001]

Oh please, that’s just a play on words.

Legally, it’s a whole lot more than a play on words.

 

[estesbob]

Oh please, that’s just a play on words.

The dispatcher was in fact telling him not to follow the suspect.

Jim

So if my wife is tired and I say “let me make dinner tonight” and she says “you don’t have to do that” that means “do not make dinner”?

 

[St_Francis]

Unless the jury believes that Zimmerman provoked the physical altercation.

First, merely following does not constitute provocation, and provocation entails more than following. It is rare that provocation does not mean who touched who first. Did Zimmerman hit Martin? If not, Martin had no right to punch him in the face and pound Zimmerman’s head against a sidewalk.

You keep going on about how Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, etc. What about Martin? He was close to home; he had a cell phone. If he felt threatened, *he *could have called the police. If he had felt threatened, *he could have gone home! *but he chose to run around in the dark and then *attack *te man who was following him, punching him viciously in the face and pounding his head into the sidewalk.

Generally, under self-defense laws, you can only use lethal force when you have no other option and staying away from Martin was an option for Zimmerman.

You seem to lack some understanding here. Once Martin jumped Zimmerman and had him down on the sidewalk pounding his head against the cement, Zimmerman was unable to retreat.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

St Francis;

You seem to lack some understanding here. Once Martin jumped Zimmerman and had him down on the sidewalk pounding his head against the cement, Zimmerman was unable to retreat.

Oh wait, where’s the evidence Martin jumped Zimmerman?

How do you know Zimmerman didn’t approach Martin with words that provoked the altercation? How do you know that Zimmerman didn’t try to apprehend Martin, which caused the altercation? Easy answer, we don’t know and we don’t know that Martin jumped Zimmerman either.

The jury will use what is presented to them and the prosecution is going to work on making the case that Martin was threatened by Zimmerman.

The defense will try to counter this with Zimmerman’s account, but the jury will be reminded, that the only other side of the story would be Martin’s and he’s in the grave now because of Zimmerman.

Jim

 

[qui_est_ce]

Ah, I got you.

And above when I typed “was” I meant “wasn’t”.

Crime and a culture of violence can be a problem in the inner-city. This dynamic of gangs and pseudo-gangs can exist in white areas and even in rural areas.

The reasons for youth violence are multi-faceted and relate to family life, socialization, empowerment, and even spirituality. Heck, there are other reasons but that stands out.

There are many ways to try to reduce violence. One of the most effective right now is to KEEP THE KIDS BUSY with responsible adults and older peers, even in lieu of family. They need to see that there options in life despite what they see around them in their neighborhood- that gangs or criminal involvement can bring power, and even a kind of “love”.

Sorry I never got back to you. This is an excellent post.

This is why I think we have to personally involve ourselves in charity. Government handouts enable irresponsible behavior, not having to deal with consequences of poor choices.

Kids are being raised by parents who feel they have no responsibility for being involved in their kids lives. The moms boyfriends either stay up all not playing video games with the children or abusing them. It’s horrible.

At the homeless shelter where I volunteer, one of the first things we have to teach the women is respect for themselves and love for their children. These women have no self-esteem. This is why they are sleeping with another man while there is a baby in the other room. By the time they are 25 they have 4 and 5 kids. And they become homeless because they are kicked out of whatever house they shared their government benefits with. They yell at their kids, mock them. We teach them to talk to their kids. What a difference that makes. You can always tell a new mom by her behavior towards her children.

One can say living in poverty is no fun. But when that is all a person has known or expects, it is irrelevant. Once a person knows they CAN achieve something better for themselves or at least their children, they can become motivated to work toward that. They start helping their children with homework, go to parent-teacher meetings. There is a grade-school right next door to the shelter, and the moms get involved. I’m amazed how the kids like to share what they learned in school. They also learn about God and something outside themselves. I love to hear the kids pray! This is not allowed by government programs.

My sister rocks babies at Crisis Nursery. She often wonders if she is making a difference. I tell her yes, at the very least it changes her heart. It is not up to us to decide if we are making a difference. We are called to care for the poor. God is the judge.

There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for social workers to do this kind of involvement. It has to come from personal caring.

 

[JohnVictor]

St Francis;

Oh wait, where’s the evidence Martin jumped Zimmerman?

Jim

Forensics back up GZ’s claim that M threw the first punch, knocking GZ to the ground, then got astride him and started punneling hin and bashing his head against the pavement. TM injuries: skinned knuckles, single gunshot wound – GZ’s insjuruies: broken nose, contusions to the back of his head, no injuries to the hands.

You’re beating a dead horse on this.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;

Oh wait, where’s the evidence Martin jumped Zimmerman?

How do you know Zimmerman didn’t approach Martin with words that provoked the altercation? How do you know that Zimmerman didn’t try to apprehend Martin, which caused the altercation? Easy answer, we don’t know and we don’t know that Martin jumped Zimmerman either.

The jury will use what is presented to them and the prosecution is going to work on making the case that Martin was threatened by Zimmerman.

The defense will try to counter this with Zimmerman’s account, but the jury will be reminded, that the only other side of the story would be Martin’s and he’s in the grave now because of Zimmerman.

Jim

This:

Forensics back up GZ’s claim that M threw the first punch, knocking GZ to the ground, then got astride him and started punneling hin and bashing his head against the pavement. TM injuries: skinned knuckles, single gunshot wound – GZ’s insjuruies: broken nose, contusions to the back of his head, no injuries to the hands.

You’re beating a dead horse on this.

And I think that given there is *no evidence *that Zimmerman is lying, that your accusations that he is lying are baseless. I don’t know why you are sticking to this idea that paints each person involved in a way opposite to the way the evidence and their prior lives and actions paints them, but it seems that you are bound and determined to believe what you believe about the situation and that there is no point in my saying anything more about it.