J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established clear interpretations (or more importantly, the prosecution's interpretation) of concepts like when the duty to escape (the mortar of any self defense case) begins or even what constitutes Second Degree Murder.Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established that Zimmerman initiated physical contact. Because they also did not establish their definition of duty to escape or when it should have begun. Zimmerman may or may not have initiated physical contact but he did set the confrontation into motion by deciding to shadow Trayvon. He could've just let the kid go about his business since there really was no cause to assume that Travyon had done anything wrong. 1) Zimmerman following Martin wasn't a guarantee that some sort of physical confrontation would have happened. 2) He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood. 3) The prosecution failed because it didn't launch an all-out, scorched earth attack on the character of George Zimmerman. 1) But Zimmerman not following Martin does guarantee that a confrontation between the two won't happen. 2) Which conflicts with Martin's civil right to feel secure in his person while minding his own business. Also, Zimmerman was not acting in his Neighborhood Watch role at the time of the shooting. 3) I agree. Since Zimmermans' account was the only living record, attacking his credibility would be the best strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Where does it say you have to sit in your car otherwise you're guilty? What business did you have as a citizen to get out of your car in the first place after reporting this individual to the police? Zimmerman did not exit his car as you put it, "for no reason whatsoever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 You don't have any business to pursue someone whatsoever unless you think that someone else is in danger. That's not the issue. But if you're going to go that route then you'd have to prove that's what was happening and not that Zimmerman got out of his car to verify a street sign and Martin attacked him which is what Zimmerman said. You don't get to a point of violating any duty to retreat unless you can prove that what he got out of his car for was to pursue Martin and the only way to get any ground with that is to go deeper into the character of Zimmerman. But the act alone of exiting your car doesn't prove anything or signify any wrong-doing unless you can prove that he got out for those reasons. And even still, if you got out of your car just to get a better look at the direction that the guy you called the cops on went and he blindsides you then no I don't think the person who got out of the car violated any duty to retreat if they were attacked. Those are things you have to prove happened and it's something that's near impossible to due given the limited evidence and testimony. You have to go into Zimmerman's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood.Where in the Constitution is that one mentioned? Life, liberty, and pursuit of unarmed innocent teenagers?9th amendment.There's a basic freedom to move about, as long as you are not doing anything illegal. You don't even have to have a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 1) But Zimmerman not following Martin does guarantee that a confrontation between the two won't happen.If I hit your car with my car, then clearly you share some of the responsibility, since if you don't drive then that guarantees that a car crash between us won't happen.There's an expectation that two people, even if they are hostile towards one another, even if they have good reasons to be hostile towards one another, should be able to co-exist peacefully in a public space. They didn't in this case and the prosecution didn't demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was the one who started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 But the act alone of exiting your car doesn't prove anything or signify any wrong-doing unless you can prove that he got out for those reasons. "These assholes always get away." - George Zimmerman Motive established at your request. I know you like arguing vagaries as fact, but let's not pretend that Zimmerman was getting out of his vehicle without a purpose in mind. If the point you're argung is that Zimmerman's reasons weren't necessarily homicidal, I can believe that Zimmerman did not deliberately pursue Martin with the intent to kill him nor do I think that his intentions were necessarily influenced by race. Filing Second-Degree Murder charges was insane. But we still have a dead teen and the defense lucked out and got a prosecution team that wasn't prepared to challenge self defense nor did they aggressively challenge Zimmerman's credibility. George sure changed his tune about cooperating with the police after being remanded into custody (Not that I blame him. That was his right under Miranda) and he even lied about his finances. His wife got arrested over that. Proving Wrongful Death should not be too hard for an attorney that gives a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood.Where in the Constitution is that one mentioned? Life, liberty, and pursuit of unarmed innocent teenagers? 9th amendment.There's a basic freedom to move about, as long as you are not doing anything illegal. You do realize that the 9th Amendment would also apply to Trayvon, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Only 3/5ths of the time. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood.Where in the Constitution is that one mentioned? Life, liberty, and pursuit of unarmed innocent teenagers?9th amendment.There's a basic freedom to move about, as long as you are not doing anything illegal. You do realize that the 9th Amendment would also apply to Trayvon, right?Yes, it does.They both had a legal right to be where they were, so whoever started the physical confrontation is the one who violated the rights of the other. I don't think the prosecution came close to proving that George Zimmerman started it beyond a reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Only 3/5ths of the time. For someone that only counts as 3/5ths of a person, I sure have been working a lot of overtime lately. Wait, hold a sec.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood.Where in the Constitution is that one mentioned? Life, liberty, and pursuit of unarmed innocent teenagers? 9th amendment.There's a basic freedom to move about, as long as you are not doing anything illegal. You do realize that the 9th Amendment would also apply to Trayvon, right? Yes, it does.They both had a legal right to be where they were, so whoever started the physical confrontation is the one who violated the rights of the other. I don't think the prosecution came close to proving that George Zimmerman started it beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree. He wouldn't have been acquitted otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcosLoura Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 [bold]If he does so, he isn't necessarily asking for a fight any more than a woman who makes out with a man is asking for sex so that anything that happens later that night can't possibly be rape.[/bold] Wait. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Only 3/5ths of the time. For someone that only counts as 3/5ths of a person, I sure have been working a lot of overtime lately. Wait, hold a sec.. Throw off your chains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 This, much like everything about the case can go both ways. I want to know what reason Trayvon had to initiate an attack. A reasonable person does not go around attacking people because "fuck it" nine times out of ten there is going to be some motivating factor, right? Lets look at the context. He had just gone to the store to purchase some candy during halftime of the NBA All-Star Game. He is on the phone with a friend. He never actually ends the call with the friend so I want to know how is it reasonable to think that this kid attacked someone out of thin air. What purpose? If he did attack Zimmerman, what was the motive? If your answer is because he felt threatened by Zimmerman (i.e. maybe he saw the gun, etc who knows) then where does that leave us? Trayvon obviously has the same rights to defend himself if a situation calls for it. Bottom line.. neither side explored what reason Trayvon would have to be an aggressor enough so we are left with a lot of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Of course there's a "reason". It's the reason racists across the country, including the many in denial about that fact, found the defense team's farcical fantasy so compelling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannon Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I want to know what reason Trayvon had to initiate an attack.Gay panic, due to fear that he was being stalked by a creepy ass-cracker homosexual rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyclicksecret Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I want to know what reason Trayvon had to initiate an attack.Gay panic, due to fear that he was being stalked by a creepy ass-cracker homosexual rapist. ...ooorrrr there was no Trayvon attack but instead Zimmerman was running after him and tackled him with such force that he fucked up his own head during the crash and also knocked Trayvon out and couldn't figure out if he was dead, so he pretended to wrestle with his unconscious body until someone took notice and then Trayvon started coming to, so he had to shoot him. I mean, who really knows anything about what actually happened? Other than the neighborhood watch guy with a gun. Who wanted to shoot a dog but settled for a black teen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yeah, we actually do know the scenario you painted didnt happen. What I think happened- Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious enough to call the cops on. He was determined enough to not let him get away so he got out of the truck and tried to chase him down. Based on the phone transcript i think he lost track of Trayvon and then either found him and tried to physically restrain him or Martin realizing he was being chased waited for an opportunity to get the upper hand and initiated the fight. They fought, Zimmerman was getting beaten and got scared and shot Martin. I think it's possible to get to a point where you can create a very believable picture of Zimmerman not exiting his vehicle to read a street sign but instead to pursue Martin. The other stuff in regards to the physical altercation and who started it will always be impossible to know or prove one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The only proof we have of the Street Sign Scenario is Zimmerman's word... which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is not credible evidence by itself. And I dunno if it's been mentioned, but for all the "Trayvon should've just used his athleticism that we all know Those People have and run away like Jesse Owens" proponents: Zimmerman had a car. Martin didn't. How the hell was he supposed to really get away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Personally, I LOVE the "neighborhood watch guy with a working cell phone needs to get out of his car to read a sign to figure out what street he's on in his neighborhood and is then ambushed by the guy he was stalking" theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.Rex-n-effeckx Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yeah, we actually do know the scenario you painted didnt happen. No we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 If this whole thing had been a fight that took place outside a nightclub, it is difficult to believe Zimmerman would not be in prison. I can't believe there is not a law about excessive force. That somehow using a gun in a fist fight is considered reasonable. In an age where you can't carry a pocket knife to school or on a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yeah, we actually do know the scenario you painted didnt happen.No we don't.Yeah we do actually because there were witnesses that saw the two scuffling from their windows but couldn't tell exactly who was who. Unconscious people dont really put up a fight. You also have the 911 call and screams of help before the gunshot was heard. Unconscious people don't scream and neither do people standing over an unconscious person about to shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glfpunk Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 If this whole thing had been a fight that took place outside a nightclub, it is difficult to believe Zimmerman would not be in prison. I can't believe there is not a law about excessive force. That somehow using a gun in a fist fight is considered reasonable. In an age where you can't carry a pocket knife to school or on a plane.I'm not sure if you're aware but there are people in this world that die at the hands of other people. People without guns or knives. But somehow still manage to kill other people. If you're in a fistfight with someone and its a fight that you didnt want to be in and may have even tried to get away from and then manage to lose the fight, you're at the complete mercy of the person who just beat you unconscious with their fists. It's not a good position to be in. It's not unreasonable or excessive to protect your own life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 It is unreasonable to use a gun in a fist fight. He is not handicapped, he was not fighting someone with a size or strength advantage. He is not elderly or a child. He was not even ambushed. Zimmerman probably had more actual training than the kid did. Shit he was not even being choked. It was clearly a fight Zimmerman wanted to be in, he had more than enough chances to run away. It was simply a fight he did not want to lose. I'm not sure if you're aware but there are people in this world that die at the hands of other people. It is pretty fucking rare, especially between two men under thirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts