'Stand Your Ground' hearing could potentially clear Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin shooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott_Lafrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kelvinf said:
What exactly are you asking about? 🤷
Click to expand...
This:
Originally Posted by kelvinf
What size and weight adv.? So you really believe that during the whole ordeal that lasted at least 44s, the only time Zimmerman could show strength was to overpower Trayvon in getting the gun? What the heck was he doing when his head was supposedly being bashed and when at one point, Trayvon apparently had one hand on his nose and the other hand bashing his head?
Click to expand...
44S?

When did he “overpower” Martin?

Show Strength?

Sounds like Martin had his hands full of head and nose? The point being?
 
Dawnia said:
See David & Goliath for an example of a very much smaller, weaker guy beating a larger opponent 😃 It does happen.

I don’t think that in a normal fight that Trayvon could have beaten George, but a surprise sucker punch to the face can give one opponent an advantage that they normally wouldn’t have. Size and strength are not everything in a fight. Heck, even I could put down a much larger male with a single well placed knee. 😛
Click to expand...
A “surprise” sucker punch administered after clearly informing your opponent that you intend to kill them?! Excuse me while I look up the word “surprise”…
 
Dawnia said:
There are external signs of a broken nose, other than bones sticking through the skin.
Click to expand...
About half your list is irrelevant as it cannot be documented by a picture (which, if you recall, is what we were discussing).

For the purposes of evidence that can stand up in court, I’m guessing some sort of examination by appropriately trained professionals would be necessary.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I do not. Stand Your Ground does not apply when the murder victim was actively pursued.
Click to expand...
The state is going to have to prove that Zimmerman was “actively pursuing” Treyvon Martin when Martin attacked him. A notion that disagrees with the publicly available facts.

Unlike these forums or the arena of politics, when one makes an accusation, they are the ones required to prove it. Zimmerman does not have to prove that he wasn’t pursuing Martin. The prosecution has to prove the case. All Zimmerman has to do is prove that he was being assaulted with reasonable fear of his life to prove self-defense. Since witness testimony and evidence indicates that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Martin was shot, Zimmerman didn’t even have a duty to flee…because he couldn’t have. Any situation prior to this…Zimmerman following him around, whatever he said on the phone, are all extraneous to self-defense. All Zimmerman has to prove, as part of his self-defense claim, is that Martin was beating him and he had no recourse but to use lethal force to defend himself.
 
vz71 said:
You apparently have already judged him, found him guilty, and determined his punishement.

And without all of the facts.
Click to expand...
And you have judged his account of events to be the truth. So what? We are both free to believe what we want.
 
SamH said:
This:

44S?

When did he “overpower” Martin?

Show Strength?

Sounds like Martin had his hands full of head and nose? The point being?
Click to expand...
Ah, seems like you weren’t/aren’t on the parallel Zimmerman thread. I pretty much detailed what I am saying here there.

44 seconds is the minimal(!) duration of the ordeal.

How can someone be suffocating you with one hand while at the same time bashing your head against the concrete with the other hand? It’s one of those things in Z’s story that doesn’t make sense. Anyways, he clearly told investigators this: “To be honest with you, I have a bad memory anyway,”. So it’s really had to tell what part of his story is due to his bad memory. 😉
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The state is going to have to prove that Zimmerman was “actively pursuing” Treyvon Martin when Martin attacked him. A notion that disagrees with the publicly available facts.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The publicly available facts prove that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car and approached him.
Scott_Lafrance said:
All Zimmerman has to prove, as part of his self-defense claim, is that Martin was beating him and he had no recourse but to use lethal force to defend himself.
Click to expand...
That is quite backwards. Travon was followed and approached by stranger with a gun. It was Travon who had the right of self defense not Zimmerman. The law clearly states that it is not applicable for the party which provoked the conflict.
 
Bill_Martin said:
1.) Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin intending to murder him (which makes no sense right from the outset, since he would never have told the dispatch he was following him), then shot him, simultaneously caused his gun to jam so that it would look like it was on the ground, then smashed his head and face into something repeatedly to make it look like he was attacked, and managed to get 2 witnesses to lie about it to support his story

or

2.) Martin came back, started attacking him, and Zimmerman shot in self defense.
Click to expand...
And scenario 2 is supposed to make more sense than scenario 1 because what, 28 yr olds who follow strange kids around at night can be assumed to have more brains than said kids? “Martin came back” is just as irrational as “Zimmerman setting out with intent to kill” - which, I suppose is why he isn’t charged with 1st degree murder.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Nonsense. The publicly available facts prove that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car and approached him.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant to self-defense. Martin could have just gone home. Martin could have called 911 himself. Martin could have walked up to Zimmerman and asked him why he was following him. Following someone isn’t a crime. It is perfectly legal, as long as you aren’t trespassing, to follow someone.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Completely irrelevant to self-defense. Martin could have just gone home. Martin could have called 911 himself. Martin could have walked up to Zimmerman and asked him why he was following him. Following someone isn’t a crime. It is perfectly legal, as long as you aren’t trespassing, to follow someone.
Click to expand...
It’s also legal to go to the store and walk back to an apartment where you have every right to be. The only illegal thing that happened that night is the shooting of an innocent kid who may or may not have been defending himself against an adult aggressor.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Not in the slightest. The Stand Your Ground law clearly states that it does not apply to the party which provoked the use of force; Zimmerman in this case.
Click to expand...
Following someone is not provocative. And there is evidence that Zimmerman was headed back to his car when Martin initiated the confrontation.

Show me anything…from any credible source, the demonstrates that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation that lead to Martin’s shooting. A critical element of provocation law is mens rea (guilty mind). The** prosecution** has to prove that Zimmerman had the intention of provoking Martin into a confrontation. Evidence to substantiate that charge is sorely lacking.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Following someone is not provocative. And there is evidence that Zimmerman was headed back to his car when Martin initiated the confrontation.

Show me anything…from any credible source, the demonstrates that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation that lead to Martin’s shooting. A critical element of provocation law is mens rea (guilty mind). The** prosecution** has to prove that Zimmerman had the intention of provoking Martin into a confrontation. Substance to make this case is sorely lacking.
Click to expand...
What is lacking? You mean his clear statement that “they always get away”? How else could his intent have been more clearly stated, by him spelling it out on an apartment wall with bullet holes?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Following someone is not provocative. And there is evidence that Zimmerman was headed back to his car when Martin initiated the confrontation.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman followed Martin in his car, continued to follow Martin as he tried to walk briskly away, continued to follow Martin after he started running away, then approached him with a loaded gun in a menacing manner. That most certainly IS provocative. The fact that Martin was approached is evident by the account of his girlfriend who heard the entire course of events all the way up until the scuffle began. Martin had every right to defend himself against a stranger who stalked him and approached him with a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top