Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

I think you have to be absolutely brain dead if you think Treyvon attacked zimmy unprovoked in a dark neighborhood.

I think Christo has said it repeatedly in this thread, that even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation it doesn't negate that he could still be in fear for his life.

Christo's argument is fun and all for an internet forum, but if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, he will be convicted.

Tim, you do understand that part of the Judge's role in court is to see that emotion is taken out of a case (as it pertains to the law), all the way up to setting aside a jury's verdict. Listening to your emotional leanings and suppositions on human nature (the jury's and the participants) is maddening; your views are exactly what the judicial system is trying to prevent in a trial.

I don't think its emotional at all. The problem with Christos argument in this case is that Zimmerman has already given his version of events, in which he says that Martin confronted him and not the other way around. If it somehow turns out that this did not take place, then Zimmerman will be viewed as a liar, and in all liklihood convicted.

Everyone is just some dude on the news, or on the internet or in a forum, or "anonymous guy" except for you..

I find your take on the whole thing rather ridiculous..

Of course you do. But from the beginning of this story, you've been rooting for George Zimmerman. You have repeated his story as if it were Gospel, you've accepted every aspect of it as true. That's why your statements on this case lack all credibility.

I'm repeating evidence as gospel.. You haven't accepted the reality of the evidence at all. Alternatively, you've been an anti-Zimmerman guy right from the start, that added to the mental block you have when it comes to the evidence of the case, suggests you lack credibility. If "John" was saying he saw Zimmerman attack Treyvon, and/or shoot him in cold blood, you'd accept that in a heartbeat. If Treyvons face and head were injured along with Zimmerman’s hands, and Treyvons hands were without a scratch, you accept that immediately. If the timeline suggested Treyvon was trying to get home rather than suggesting he turned back or stuck around. etc etc...

 

[timschochet]

Here's an example to simplify your thinking: A wacky, zany judge decides to skip opening statements and jump right into things. The defendant takes the stand. The prosecutor's first words are "You killed that guy! You shot him dead!" The defendant replies "Yes, I did. But it was in self-defense." The prosecution rests. The defense rests. The judge and the lawyers go play golf. So the prosecution got a confession to killing. They did not present any evidence whatsoever that it wasn't self-defense while the defendant didn't present any evidence that it was. Legally, how should the jury find? Forget what people would actually do in real life, as that's not important here. Forget what the moral thing to do is. Who wins?

I had posted this before to simplify matters.

If you're going to make this argument, you probably shouldn't use the word "murder." Just saying.

And yet again you ignore the point of the post, Who wins?

I didn't ignore your post. If murder has been proven, the prosecution wins. There is no self-defense argument against murder.

Remove that sentence...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646429

OK. Now that you have removed that sentence, I will answer your question.

The prosecution wins. Anytime there is a killing that is admitted to by the defendant, the defendant is automatically guilty UNLESS he can prove self-defense. Simply stating self-defense is not proof. In this case, the prosecution doesn't need to prove anything, because it is acknowledged there is a killing and that the guy did it.

Therefore, since the defendant provided no evidence of self-defense beyond his claim, he is guilty. Off to prison!

 

[JHuber77]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

to be fair, Z has told his story a number of times and there are inconsistencies which prosecution will probably focus on.

You have his NEN call

You have his original statement

You have his video walk-thru

You have his recorded interviews

It's pretty easy to find a few inconsistencies with his story but I feel they are all pretty minor.

Even if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever, that wouldn't make his story any more plausible. All it would mean is that he was consistent in his lies.

You haven't disproven anything Zimmerman said.. So between his version (has proof in timeline, recorded calls, witness, uncontested statements) and yours (all emotionally based conjecture and supposition) I tend to believe his story..

 

[timschochet]

I think you have to be absolutely brain dead if you think Treyvon attacked zimmy unprovoked in a dark neighborhood.

I think Christo has said it repeatedly in this thread, that even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation it doesn't negate that he could still be in fear for his life.

Christo's argument is fun and all for an internet forum, but if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, he will be convicted.

Tim, you do understand that part of the Judge's role in court is to see that emotion is taken out of a case (as it pertains to the law), all the way up to setting aside a jury's verdict. Listening to your emotional leanings and suppositions on human nature (the jury's and the participants) is maddening; your views are exactly what the judicial system is trying to prevent in a trial.

I don't think its emotional at all. The problem with Christos argument in this case is that Zimmerman has already given his version of events, in which he says that Martin confronted him and not the other way around. If it somehow turns out that this did not take place, then Zimmerman will be viewed as a liar, and in all liklihood convicted.

Everyone is just some dude on the news, or on the internet or in a forum, or "anonymous guy" except for you..

I find your take on the whole thing rather ridiculous..

Of course you do. But from the beginning of this story, you've been rooting for George Zimmerman. You have repeated his story as if it were Gospel, you've accepted every aspect of it as true. That's why your statements on this case lack all credibility.

I'm repeating evidence as gospel.. You haven't accepted the reality of the evidence at all. Alternatively, you've been an anti-Zimmerman guy right from the start, that added to the mental block you have when it comes to the evidence of the case, suggests you lack credibility. If "John" was saying he saw Zimmerman attack Treyvon, and/or shoot him in cold blood, you'd accept that in a heartbeat. If Treyvons face and head were injured along with Zimmerman’s hands, and Treyvons hands were without a scratch, you accept that immediately. If the timeline suggested Treyvon was trying to get home rather than suggesting he turned back or stuck around. etc etc...

How would you know? If any of that stuff had been in evidence before the trial, you'd be out of here like a scared chicken. You wouldn't post. I'm betting you wouldn't even want to hear about the trial anymore because it would not longer satisfy your predisposed cultural and political viewpoint.

And I am betting right now that if this trial doesn't turn out the way you want it to, we won't be hearing from you about it. (Except perhaps to claim that a miscarriage of justice occurred.)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

 

[pantherclub]

to be fair, Z has told his story a number of times and there are inconsistencies which prosecution will probably focus on.

You have his NEN call

You have his original statement

You have his video walk-thru

You have his recorded interviews

It's pretty easy to find a few inconsistencies with his story but I feel they are all pretty minor.

Even if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever, that wouldn't make his story any more plausible. All it would mean is that he was consistent in his lies.

You haven't disproven anything Zimmerman said.. So between his version (has proof in timeline, recorded calls, witness, uncontested statements) and yours (all emotionally based conjecture and supposition) I tend to believe his story..

In fact, I am fairly certain that very little of this trial will unwind the way that Zimmerman's defenders here think it will...

so to be clear, you think Treyvon just randomly walked up to Zimmerman and punched him in the nose unprovoked? Thats what you believe?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I think you have to be absolutely brain dead if you think Treyvon attacked zimmy unprovoked in a dark neighborhood.

I think Christo has said it repeatedly in this thread, that even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation it doesn't negate that he could still be in fear for his life.

Christo's argument is fun and all for an internet forum, but if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, he will be convicted.

Tim, you do understand that part of the Judge's role in court is to see that emotion is taken out of a case (as it pertains to the law), all the way up to setting aside a jury's verdict. Listening to your emotional leanings and suppositions on human nature (the jury's and the participants) is maddening; your views are exactly what the judicial system is trying to prevent in a trial.

I don't think its emotional at all. The problem with Christos argument in this case is that Zimmerman has already given his version of events, in which he says that Martin confronted him and not the other way around. If it somehow turns out that this did not take place, then Zimmerman will be viewed as a liar, and in all liklihood convicted.

Everyone is just some dude on the news, or on the internet or in a forum, or "anonymous guy" except for you..

I find your take on the whole thing rather ridiculous..

Of course you do. But from the beginning of this story, you've been rooting for George Zimmerman. You have repeated his story as if it were Gospel, you've accepted every aspect of it as true. That's why your statements on this case lack all credibility.

I'm repeating evidence as gospel.. You haven't accepted the reality of the evidence at all. Alternatively, you've been an anti-Zimmerman guy right from the start, that added to the mental block you have when it comes to the evidence of the case, suggests you lack credibility. If "John" was saying he saw Zimmerman attack Treyvon, and/or shoot him in cold blood, you'd accept that in a heartbeat. If Treyvons face and head were injured along with Zimmerman’s hands, and Treyvons hands were without a scratch, you accept that immediately. If the timeline suggested Treyvon was trying to get home rather than suggesting he turned back or stuck around. etc etc...

How would you know? If any of that stuff had been in evidence before the trial, you'd be out of here like a scared chicken. You wouldn't post. I'm betting you wouldn't even want to hear about the trial anymore because it would not longer satisfy your predisposed cultural and political viewpoint.

And I am betting right now that if this trial doesn't turn out the way you want it to, we won't be hearing from you about it. (Except perhaps to claim that a miscarriage of justice occurred.)

More supposition? Figures..

 

[timschochet]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

 

[JHuber77]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

Now your really reaching. Step away from this thread and go start a different one.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

to be fair, Z has told his story a number of times and there are inconsistencies which prosecution will probably focus on.

You have his NEN call

You have his original statement

You have his video walk-thru

You have his recorded interviews

It's pretty easy to find a few inconsistencies with his story but I feel they are all pretty minor.

Even if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever, that wouldn't make his story any more plausible. All it would mean is that he was consistent in his lies.

You haven't disproven anything Zimmerman said.. So between his version (has proof in timeline, recorded calls, witness, uncontested statements) and yours (all emotionally based conjecture and supposition) I tend to believe his story..

In fact, I am fairly certain that very little of this trial will unwind the way that Zimmerman's defenders here think it will...

so to be clear, you think Treyvon just randomly walked up to Zimmerman and punched him in the nose unprovoked? Thats what you believe?

You haven't disproven anything Zimmerman said.. So between his version (has proof in timeline, recorded calls, witness, uncontested statements) and yours (all emotionally based conjecture and supposition) I tend to believe his story.. Please point out the evidence that contradicts Zimmermans story.. There is none..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

In order for Zimmerman to lie, he would have had to make a statment.. The jury isn't even going to know about what Ms Zimmerman said..

 

[timschochet]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

In order for Zimmerman to lie, he would have had to make a statment.. The jury isn't even going to know about what Ms Zimmerman said..

I already acknowledged that. My point is that it should make you and I more skeptical of ol' George. (Well, not you, since you're like a teenage girl with him as the lead singer of your favorite boy band.)

 

[pittstownkiller]

Furthermore- what so many of you who are confident that Zimmerman will easily be acquitted fail to realize is that, unlike most murder trials, the burden of proof here is on the defense. The prosecution does not have to prove the facts of the case- that has already been acknowledged, the main fact being that Zimmerman shot Martin to death. Zimmerman is arguing self-defense, and he has to make the jury believe it. That's not going to be an easy task, given the circumstances. It seems easy for some of you because you guys WANT to believe Zimmerman's story (which BTW is pretty sad in itself). But the jury won't necessarily want to. Unless you're already a fan of Zimmerman for some unfathomable reason, his tale seems contrived and full of holes.

The evidence speaks for itself, the prosecution needs to disprove the defense's self defense claim, they will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Z had a reasonable escape and failed to take it.

With SYG I am not sure that a reasonable escape is enough.

This is the defense being used, I might have worded that wrong, the prosecution needs to prove this was not the case in order to refute the justifiable use of force to overcome the self-defense immunity.

776.041 (2) (a)

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that 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; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

 

I would guess this is why the defense is using "self-defense" rather than "SYG", in an effort to portray Zimmerman as the non-aggressor. The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES

Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter

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

© 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Here's an example to simplify your thinking: A wacky, zany judge decides to skip opening statements and jump right into things. The defendant takes the stand. The prosecutor's first words are "You killed that guy! You shot him dead!" The defendant replies "Yes, I did. But it was in self-defense." The prosecution rests. The defense rests. The judge and the lawyers go play golf. So the prosecution got a confession to killing. They did not present any evidence whatsoever that it wasn't self-defense while the defendant didn't present any evidence that it was. Legally, how should the jury find? Forget what people would actually do in real life, as that's not important here. Forget what the moral thing to do is. Who wins?

I had posted this before to simplify matters.

If you're going to make this argument, you probably shouldn't use the word "murder." Just saying.

And yet again you ignore the point of the post, Who wins?

I didn't ignore your post. If murder has been proven, the prosecution wins. There is no self-defense argument against murder.

Remove that sentence...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646429

OK. Now that you have removed that sentence, I will answer your question.

The prosecution wins. Anytime there is a killing that is admitted to by the defendant, the defendant is automatically guilty UNLESS he can prove self-defense. Simply stating self-defense is not proof. In this case, the prosecution doesn't need to prove anything, because it is acknowledged there is a killing and that the guy did it.

Therefore, since the defendant provided no evidence of self-defense beyond his claim, he is guilty. Off to prison!

Where do you live that homicide = murder?

Are you saying the prosecution does not need to prove criminal intent, unlawful killing, malice afterthought?

Modern codifications tend to create a genus of offenses, known collectively as homicide, of which murder is the most serious species, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime at all.

Prosecution at the very least needs to prove it was NOT a justifiable homicide as I outlined in my previous post.

Innocent until prosecution proves he is guilty ring a bell?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

In order for Zimmerman to lie, he would have had to make a statment.. The jury isn't even going to know about what Ms Zimmerman said..

I already acknowledged that. My point is that it should make you and I more skeptical of ol' George. (Well, not you, since you're like a teenage girl with him as the lead singer of your favorite boy band.)

I'm pretty sure 90% of America hides money.. Alternatively, a great deal less would shoot someone unless they have to.. Hiding money and cold blooded murder are not synonymous..

Police officers lie under oath every day.. People are liars, that doesn't mean everything every person says is a lie.. I think it's rather hypocritical for you to suggest...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

 

[timschochet]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

Really? It's inadmissible at trial? Gee, I'm glad you pointed that out, otherwise it would never have occurred to me. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

Really? It's inadmissible at trial? Gee, I'm glad you pointed that out, otherwise it would never have occurred to me. Why didn't I think of that?

A little emotional eh? Correct it's inadmissible at the murder trial oops I mean the homicide trial according to you.

 

[kentric]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Tim. Why do you disclaim John's testimony? Its not like he came forward once this event became galvanized. His testimony was provided the following day (I believe - based on the tape I heard). He reported Martin as suspicious because he fit the description of someone who was known to have broken into a house (i.e., he profiled Martin). Why wouldn't you consider the most likely scenario as plausable/probable?

I am not disclaiming his testimony because he hasn't given any testimony. Let's see if he shows up and trial and what he actually says. I absolutely agree with you 100% that IF he is a credible witness and states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it will be extremely difficult for Zimmerman to be convicted. But I have a strong feeling that the testimony, if it occurs, will be nowhere near that precise.

In fact, I am fairly certain that very little of this trial will unwind the way that Zimmerman's defenders here think it will...

Attached is a deposition of John (not the day after, but ca. 3 weeks after the event). What I find interesting is where John says that the sounds of the argument/altercation was coming closer as time went along. Starting at 11 mins in he begins discussing who was on top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE

 

[BustedKnuckles]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

but it WAS a pretty big deal to the courts. I got the felling that Zimmy wasnt well liked or trusted after that. The judge was PISSED

 

[pittstownkiller]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

but it WAS a pretty big deal to the courts. I got the felling that Zimmy wasnt well liked or trusted after that. The judge was PISSED

Now imagine if he butt-slapped his attorney.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

but it WAS a pretty big deal to the courts. I got the felling that Zimmy wasnt well liked or trusted after that. The judge was PISSED

Now imagine if he butt-slapped his attorney.

then the #### would have REALLY hit the fan haha

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Tim. Why do you disclaim John's testimony? Its not like he came forward once this event became galvanized. His testimony was provided the following day (I believe - based on the tape I heard). He reported Martin as suspicious because he fit the description of someone who was known to have broken into a house (i.e., he profiled Martin). Why wouldn't you consider the most likely scenario as plausable/probable?

I am not disclaiming his testimony because he hasn't given any testimony. Let's see if he shows up and trial and what he actually says. I absolutely agree with you 100% that IF he is a credible witness and states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it will be extremely difficult for Zimmerman to be convicted. But I have a strong feeling that the testimony, if it occurs, will be nowhere near that precise.

In fact, I am fairly certain that very little of this trial will unwind the way that Zimmerman's defenders here think it will...

Attached is a deposition of John (not the day after, but ca. 3 weeks after the event). What I find interesting is where John says that the sounds of the argument/altercation was coming closer as time went along. Starting at 11 mins in he begins discussing who was on top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE

Witness 6

This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.

He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.

But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.

"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.

He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.

He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.

"The black guy was on top," he said.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. … All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

 

[timschochet]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

Extremely important witness. If the jury becomes convinced that Zimmerman was on top, I believe he will be convicted.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's an example to simplify your thinking: A wacky, zany judge decides to skip opening statements and jump right into things. The defendant takes the stand. The prosecutor's first words are "You killed that guy! You shot him dead!" The defendant replies "Yes, I did. But it was in self-defense." The prosecution rests. The defense rests. The judge and the lawyers go play golf. So the prosecution got a confession to killing. They did not present any evidence whatsoever that it wasn't self-defense while the defendant didn't present any evidence that it was. Legally, how should the jury find? Forget what people would actually do in real life, as that's not important here. Forget what the moral thing to do is. Who wins?

I had posted this before to simplify matters.

If you're going to make this argument, you probably shouldn't use the word "murder." Just saying.

And yet again you ignore the point of the post, Who wins?

I didn't ignore your post. If murder has been proven, the prosecution wins. There is no self-defense argument against murder.

Remove that sentence...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646429

OK. Now that you have removed that sentence, I will answer your question.

The prosecution wins. Anytime there is a killing that is admitted to by the defendant, the defendant is automatically guilty UNLESS he can prove self-defense. Simply stating self-defense is not proof. In this case, the prosecution doesn't need to prove anything, because it is acknowledged there is a killing and that the guy did it.

Therefore, since the defendant provided no evidence of self-defense beyond his claim, he is guilty. Off to prison!

All the defense has to do is assert some positive proof that it might have been self-defense. The pictures of Zimmerman's bloody nose on the night of the act do just that. At that point, all the defense has to do is create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury that it was self-defense and they acquit. Tim, you are such a zealout to get Zimmerman convicted you jump to insane conclusions.

 

[jon_mx]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

Extremely important witness. If the jury becomes convinced that Zimmerman was on top, I believe he will be convicted.

so when Zimmerman's wife lies, you are convinced that everything Zimmerman says is a lie. But when this witness who can't keep their story straight, gives completely contridictary accounts, tells a story which supports your side, you are ready to convict. Come on Tim.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

Extremely important witness. If the jury becomes convinced that Zimmerman was on top, I believe he will be convicted.

so when Zimmerman's wife lies, you are convinced that everything Zimmerman says is a lie. But when this witness who can't keep their story straight, gives completely contridictary accounts, tells a story which supports your side, you are ready to convict. Come on Tim.

Holy ####. It's really incredible. Glossed right over witness 6 the post above and comments on how important witness 12 is because she changed her story to what he wanted to hear.

The bias is off the charts.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. … All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

When you share these statements, I suggest you post the entire statement and not only the parts that suit your POV:

She heard a howling sound, then she heard “help.” She doesn’t know who was saying “help”. At first she couldn’t see anything, because it was dark. A guy was on top of another, then she heard the shot. She couldn’t see any faces or clothing. After comparing the pics on TV, she thinks it was Zimmerman who was on top because the bigger guy is the one who was on top.

What does bigger mean? Taller?

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-12-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think you have to be absolutely brain dead if you think Treyvon attacked zimmy unprovoked in a dark neighborhood.

I think Christo has said it repeatedly in this thread, that even if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation it doesn't negate that he could still be in fear for his life.

I am not so sure of that. I guess it depends on what actually happened. Did Zimmerman grab Treyvon and try and hold him? Did he brandish the gun to play billy bad ###? Fact is we will never know.

And it depends on whether it would have been reasonable for him to fear for his life. Force can be defended by like in kind force. Getting beat up doesn't mean you get to pull and gun and shoot in self-defense from getting punched in the face, particularly if you were the initial aggressor and are getting punched because the other party is in fact also acting in self-defense.

 

[glock]

Some of you guys- on both sides of this- should just get out of this thread and let some new, impartial blood take over. SRSLY.

 

[jon_mx]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

 

[timschochet]

Witness 12

A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.

During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.

"I don't know which one. All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.

Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.

Extremely important witness. If the jury becomes convinced that Zimmerman was on top, I believe he will be convicted.

so when Zimmerman's wife lies, you are convinced that everything Zimmerman says is a lie. But when this witness who can't keep their story straight, gives completely contridictary accounts, tells a story which supports your side, you are ready to convict. Come on Tim.

Holy ####. It's really incredible.Glossed right over witness 6 the post above and comments on how important witness 12 is because she changed her story to what he wanted to hear.

The bias is off the charts.

 

[timschochet]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

 

[timschochet]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.

But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Does the civil case run concurrently to the criminal trial? Or does it have to wait? Is the evidence and testimony from the criminal trial admissable for the civil trial?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.

But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

The self-defense laws in Florida are very similar to many other places in the country.. This isn't exclusive to Florida, and it has been quoted to you a million times in this thread.. You have a very selective memory..

Would it be ok to use a gun in self-defense if someone was coming after you with a bat and said he was going to break your legs? Or cut off your fingers, Mob style assault.. Or maybe Mike Tyson was enraged and was going to beat you unconscious maybe even with the intent to give you brain damage..

And how can you ever know what someone’s intent is? There was a gun here, Zimmerman didn't know who Treyvon was or what he would do.. If Treyvon, a complete stranger just attacked him, that could lead to a great deal of panic, and if he was pinned down, getting his head beat against the concrete or whatever, at any point you could take a blow that lands you unconscious, then the bad guy has your gun and you're unconscious.. How do you know he won't use it?

You paint such ridiculous conclusions yet you can't see the potential for self-defense in this situation.. You must be trolling..

 

[timschochet]

Does the civil case run concurrently to the criminal trial? Or does it have to wait? Is the evidence and testimony from the criminal trial admissable for the civil trial?

I think it's normally afterwards- like the OJ Simpson trial.

But what's the point of the civil trial anyhow? It's not like this guy has any money.

 

[greenroom]

Does the civil case run concurrently to the criminal trial? Or does it have to wait? Is the evidence and testimony from the criminal trial admissable for the civil trial?

I think it's normally afterwards- like the OJ Simpson trial.

But what's the point of the civil trial anyhow? It's not like this guy has any money.

Not at this point, but he could if he wrote a book or movie. That is why they will go after him no matter what happens.

 

[jon_mx]

It does not have to be life-threatening. Just to prevent great bodily harm or a forcible felony. Like it or not, Zinnerman walks.

There's the truth whether you want to believe it or not..

Maybe it is the truth in Florida. Who knows? The laws are screwed up there.But if you guys think it's perfectly OK to shoot and kill someone in a non-life threatening situation, then I don't think I've ever disagreed more.

Who knows? It is what the law says. We are not discussing your moral view of the situation.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Tim needs to be knocked unconscious, shot, have an anvil fall on his head, or get stabbed by a unicorn before he feels it is life threatening.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Zimmerman was in a life threatening position the minute he escalated the confrontation while carrying a loaded firearm.

So he has a strong point. Self induced "life threatening" is still life threatening.

Thats why you see so many of the unintended outcomes in Florida. And evidently its more life threatening if you shot a black man (as per the stats).

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Zimmerman was in a life threatening position the minute he escalated the confrontation while carrying a loaded firearm.

So he has a strong point. Self induced "life threatening" is still life threatening.

Thats why you see so many of the unintended outcomes in Florida. And evidently its more life threatening if you shot a black man (as per the stats).

 

[Lutherman2112]

As far as I know anything Mrs. Z said (as well anything that occurred during the bond hearing) is inadmissible in this trial so you guys can stop discussing it like it is the smoking gun of Z's character.

Like you haven't promoted inadmissible evidence.

LOL

 

[Christo]

The people here who argue for Zimmerman accept his story as gospel. None of you have any idea if it's true. We don't know that Martin art tacked Zimmerman. We don't know that Martin was ever on top of Zimmerman (and please don't bring up "John"- the word of an anonymous guy to the newspapers is not proof)- we don't know that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. So please stop using these statements as if they are evidence. None of it is proven, or even necessarily probable at this point.

Here's what we know: Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious for no apparent reason that has yet been determined. Zimmerman complained that these guys always get away. Zimmerman stepped out of his car and traveled 100 yards away from his car. There was a confrontation. Zimmerman fired one shot from his gun, which killed Martin.

Zimmerman contacted the police before the incident. After the incident he told the police what had happened. The next day he did a detailed "walk through" demonstrating exactly what had happened.Through all of the investigations and forensic evidence, I haven't heard one part of Zimmerman's story to be proven not true. Why aren't we supposed to believe what he says?

Is it?

The reason we aren't supposed to necessarily believe what he says is because he fired a gun and killed a man, and now he's motivated to keep himself out of prison. In such circumstances, I believe it is up to Mr. Zimmerman to prove what he says is true, and not the other way around. We as the public should begin highly skeptical of Zimmerman's story. So should the jury.

(Actually, we as the public should be MORE skeptical than the jury, since we know that he is already a proven liar under oath, and the jury will not be privy to this information.)

Lied under oath according to whom?

His wife excluded information in a bond hearing.. Zimmerman has not even been accused of lying under oath.. Tim is full of it..

"Excluded information"? She lied. And Zimmerman was sitting right there next to her. He didn't seek to contradict her. As far as I'm concerned, that's proof that he's a big fat liar. How can anyone believe anything he says after that?

 

[kentric]

Zimmerman was in a life threatening position the minute he escalated the confrontation while carrying a loaded firearm.

So he has a strong point. Self induced "life threatening" is still life threatening.

Thats why you see so many of the unintended outcomes in Florida. And evidently its more life threatening if you shot a black man (as per the stats).

Escalated the confrontation? Are you referring to when Zimmerman left his vehicle? Other than construing that his leaving the vehicle and following after Martin, there's no evidence that he escalated anything.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Zimmerman was in a life threatening position the minute he escalated the confrontation while carrying a loaded firearm.

So he has a strong point. Self induced "life threatening" is still life threatening.

Thats why you see so many of the unintended outcomes in Florida. And evidently its more life threatening if you shot a black man (as per the stats).

Escalated the confrontation? Are you referring to when Zimmerman left his vehicle? Other than construing that his leaving the vehicle and following after Martin, there's no evidence that he escalated anything.

I guess you are unaware that policemen escalate dozens of confrontations a day just by getting their morning donut since they are carrying a loaded firearm.

 

[greenroom]

Zimmerman was in a life threatening position the minute he escalated the confrontation while carrying a loaded firearm.

So he has a strong point. Self induced "life threatening" is still life threatening.

Thats why you see so many of the unintended outcomes in Florida. And evidently its more life threatening if you shot a black man (as per the stats).

Escalated the confrontation? Are you referring to when Zimmerman left his vehicle? Other than construing that his leaving the vehicle and following after Martin, there's no evidence that he escalated anything.

There is also no evidence saying that Martin was the one who escalated it either. But someone did and the first person who did start it without a doubt was Zimmerman when he started towards Martin. After that we will probably never know the real truth of what happened that night!