General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid Zimmerman put hands on Martin first?
The last thing Ms. Jeantel heard (before the headset's rustling noises) was Trayvon's voice saying "Get off! Get off!". This reminded me of the "What Would You Do" episode last night of the 3 thieves who stole stuff from a car in front of a cafe. Some of the bystanders who felt it was their duty to approach and confront someone who they thought was taking another person's property had no problem putting their hands on those 'suspects'. They had hands on shoulders, one guy held the 'suspect' down forcibly and used language like he was a cop "I'm gonna ask you to step outside and put your hands where I can see them", etc.
It makes me think that Zimmerman would have had no trouble putting his hands out to Martin (after their paths crossed near the dog walk station) to either keep him from moving further away, or to hold him there til the cops got there. Martin was already scared that this guy was following him so I can see him telling him to 'get off, get off!' if Zimmerman came toward him aggressively and put his hands on him. This would be followed by Zimmerman 'forgetting' he keeps his phone in his coat pocket, pushes his jacket back to get his 'cell phone' from his pants pocket (which was really him trying to get his gun). Trayvon sees this, becomes even more scared and that punch to the face happens. (And even if he was trying to get his phone, he has acted suspiciously toward Trayvon and then aggressively, Trayvon was well within his rights to protect himself).
Skip to 3:00 to watch the bold guy's actions.
What Would you Do? Unlocked Car Part 2 3:00
http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/unlocked-car-twist-19720198
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
napi21
(45,806 posts)had a hard time. AFAIK the FL. la states that if you are the aggressor (threw the first punch) you can't use the stand your ground law. As much as most people say SYG law wasn't used in the trial, the jury thought it was. If they would have been convinced that Zim threw the first punch they would have convicted him.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)In his re-enactment video he is struggling and reaching to piece together his story when they got to the area where he and Trayvon 'met'.
You know, you're helping me realize another important aspect of choosing a jury; I feel that this group might not have had sense enough to understand that 'get off' would not mean that Trayvon was down and Zimmerman on top of him, but to 'back up off of me'. A more mixed jury might have had someone on there who could explain that to them. And to me, Jeantel hearing those as Trayvon's last words shows that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
spin
(17,493 posts)No defense attorney worth his salt would have wanted Zimmerman to take the stand. In my opinion, Zimmerman would have had to be a fool to testify even if his story was the truth as the prosecutor is a professional at his game. If Zimmerman had decided to testify it would have been like his getting in the ring with Mike Tyson. There were plenty of weaknesses in Zimmerman's story that would have enabled the prosecuting attorney to land a knockout blow.
If the prosecution had built a strong case, the defense might have decided to let Zimmerman testify. They would have had little or nothing to lose.
zencycler
(9 posts)Right, their only hope of getting GZ to take the stand would have been to do one of the following:
1) Not introduce his statements to the police which gave his side of the story, and essentially put his self-defense claim into evidence without subjecting him to cross-examination.
2) Provide a believable (beyond a reasonable doubt) narrative, based on testimony and evidence, which would suggest that GZ had initiated a PHYSICAL assault on TM (if you're in the process of committing a crime, you cannot then claim self defense).
3) Provide a believable (beyond a reasonable doubt) narrative, based on testimony and evidence, that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm or death at the time of the shooting.
4) Opted to not charge him with the serious charges, but instead charge him with something like Negligent Homicide. On this last point, at the very least they should have asked for this to be one of the lessor included offenses for the jury to consider. While just adding this to the list would have not gotten GZ to the stand, the jurors would likely have convicted on this charge because it specifically relates to the GZ's actions (getting out of car, following, not identifying self at first opportunity), and more importantly, a self-defense claim at the time of the shooting is NOT a defense against being held accountable for your negligent actions which led to you being put into that situation.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)...because the prosecution had pretty much already let him testify by playing the video where Zimmerman got to tell his version of the story. To me, that seems like a big mistake.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've wondered about what would have happened if the prosecution hadn't presented that video as part of their case. If the defense had tried to use it, would the judge have allowed it? After all, that pretty much allowed Zimmerman to testify without being cross-examined.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Please, he would have been crushed on cross examination and would have been made to look like a fool. Same as Casey Anthony.
He would have been a TERRIBLE witness on the stand.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)That's why I don't understand why the prosecution introduced the video. I would have thought they would want the chance to cross-examine Zimmerman, instead of basically letting him tell his story the way he wanted to.
the law, (does it say throwing the first punch) or any physical contact for that matter? You don't have to throw a punch to be an aggressor. It has to be an act, that leaves some one to reasonably believe they are in imminent danger.
That is the part of the law that was ignored. That is the cover up going on. All Zimmerman has to do is move towards Martin in an aggressive manner, which gives Martin the right to react to him. It is called a provocation. He could even grab Martin in an offensive manner which would give Martin the right to react.
Once Zimmerman pursued Martin in an aggressive manner,including with a loaded gun, gave Martin the right to act in self defense. That is the part, Zimmerman's excusers want everyone to dismiss in the law. They have given their interpretation and claiming nobody has a right to question them. but there are other cases to dispute them and decisions by other courts.
The provocation started when Zimmerman pursued Martin. They want you to believe it was Zimmerman's right to pursue Martin.
They want you to believe, if it was Zimmerman's right to pursue Martin, then Zimmerman legally had the right to be at the same place as Martin.
The Zimmerman excusers want you to throw out the skill, what lawyers have done through the entire profession on how they decide difficult cases. They want you to throw out motive and intent. The only reason Zimmerman, intended to be where he was at is because he pursued Martin. Zimmerman was not denied from going any place. It wasn't like Zimmerman was just out on a casual walk. That is the difference between the right to be some where and pursuing another person with a gun. These lawyers just skipped over this part of the law. It is what you intended to do.
Martin on the other hand did not intend to confront Zimmerman or never pursued him at all. Martin had a right to go to a 711 and back home, without Zimmerman intefering with his right to do so. What was presented to the jury, was Martin circled back on Zimmerman after Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin. That made Martin the aggressor instead. The problem is, there was no evidence presented in that trial to prove that, except the words of Zimmerman.
Inconsistancies also were shown in the re-enactment. Zimmerman had to change statements on where Martin came from because the Bushes was no where near the side walk.
Martin being on his cell phone with Jeantel up until Zimmerman appearing again, gives Zimmerman a problem too about Martin sneaking up on him out the dark. Those lawyers and the jury disregarded common logic here.
I suggest , anyone who doesn't know about the law, go to the Law Library and look up intent, inregards to Civil Law or Criminal Law. If you don't know much about the Law, these lawyers are just like mechanics. Just look up the the definition of motive and intent with reference to the law.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)I'm so happy the adults are in charge.
I can walk up to you and say anything I want short of a terroristic threat. If I don't know you that's not stalking, that's communication.
Agression starts with a threat or a touch.
How hard is this to grasp? You have NO reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Christ almighty people. Read or educate yourselves more.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I would call a terroistic threat, but it certainly would be provocation for the person you said it to hit first.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is not enough to justify throwing a blow at the person or otherwise using physical force against them.
It is enough in many states to charge the person who uttered it with a charge like Disorderly Conduct, but does not justify a physical assault upon the person.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)If it's some drunk idiot who says I'm going to kick your ass from across the bar, then probably not.
If it's some dude who gets in your personal space and says it, then it likely is.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)"Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words."
Google that phrase- That is a basic tenant of common law found reflected in the law of all 50 states.
It is a very high bar to reach to justify using physical force against just words, and just being "up in your space" talking smack is not good enough legal excuse to strike someone. Nor would following them. Now if they display a weapon, have a history of violent assaults the victim is aware of, or make motions like they will strike, that can be enough. Being in your personal space talking smack is not.
If just being in somebodies face talking smack was enough to justify striking somebody, it would be open season on a lot of picket lines...
I hauled more than a few off to jail who had believed just as you do that if someone got in your face and talked smack you could hit them- and the judge never accepted their arguments. Of course I also got the person who did get up in the persons face and threaten to kick their ass for Disorderly Conduct.... so no winners if it goes down like that.
John2
(2,730 posts)you hauled a lot of people off to jail so we can assume you must be a police officer. I've also looked up your very claim and found the opposite.
If you follow some one and they tell you not too, then it becomes stalking. That is against the law. People can take you to court and get a restraining order against you. So your interpretation of the law is wrong. Go ahead and let somebody believe they can follow me and see what happens. Giving people that idea is asking for trouble. It is just as irresponsible as the stand your ground law or claiming racism no longer exists.
The victim does not have to be aware of anything, a person they have never even met. And especially when someone follows a minor at night without identifying themselves. Especially with all these crazy pyscopaths, rapists, terrorists, child molestors and racists in this society. Why in the hell would you have police officers or community watch if you think it was so safe? It just depends on who the victim is and the defendent is just like President Obama claims.
If you got a kid and he is white. I guess it would be OK with you if I followed him at night and thought he was up to no good. I guess you would see no problems with that and I was 40 pounds bigger and close to my thirties huh? I wouldn't tell him who I was either. I would just walk right up to the little punk in Zimmerman's words and he better not resist or I shoot the little booger. IF he scratch or even injure me once, self defense.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And you are just making stuff up.
Following a person once is not stalking under the law. Stalking requires a pattern of multiple incidents of following or harassing a person.
A person can follow you, you can tell them to stop, and if they don't that doesn't create the crime of stalking or any other crime. Your claims as such are just plain wrong and not grounded in the law.
If you are the kid of person who would strike a person for merely following them and saying things you don't like, I strongly suggest anger management counseling before you do so and find out how wrong you are about the law.
You say you looked into it and found the opposite of what I say is true- please post the case law and statutes that back your claims.
John2
(2,730 posts)you go back and look at the meaning of the law, when it comes to merely following a person and intent. I strongly suggest that you look at the difference between merely following someone and following a person with intentions to apprehend that person and carrying a deadly firearm to do so.
Zimmerman carried that gun for the purpose of apprehending what he considered suspects.
I also sugest that you look up the meaning of apprehensive and immininent danger.
Trayvon Martin considered Zimmerman a threat, when he followed him which makes all the difference. When he approached Zimmerman in his vehicle the first time, Zimmerman did not identify himself. I stringly suggest that you follow the occurence of events and the 911 call.
The language Zimmerman used was derogatory, calling the victim, punk, Ahole and such.
I strongly suggest that you pay close attention to each person's then immediate reactions. Trayvon Martin ran. Zimmerman's own words was "Oh shit he is running." Who pursued whom and who was apprehensive of whom?
Who pursued whom knowing they had the protection of a loaded deadly weapon? And to illustrate the apprehension, who called whom a crazy ass cracker following me? I'm going to get exactly what you want. I'll be back with it.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)is just mere insults. Your mom is a whore, you suck dick, etc.
I'm going to kick your ass is a threat in the context I presented and yes, would make one believe that he or she is about to get hit by the person who said it.
What's next, are you going to tell me that "I'm going to get my gun and shoot you" or "I'm going to pull the knife out of my pocket and stab you" is not enough to justify a first strike either? Same thing is being said, it's just that "I'm going to kick your ass" implies fists.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Plus the victim knowing he ha a gun, either by seeing it or some sort of prior knowledge, would quite possibly be enough, but if the gun wasn't pointed around here most prosecutors would let the grand jury make that call.
I can tell you I saw many time defendants try to justify a first strike because something was said- and never saw the judge buy it. Even if a person uses "fighting words", that alone isn't enough, even if they follow you or get close to you.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)jail is get within 3 inches of them and say I'm going to kick your ass bitch all red faced and when they hit me cry foul.
Hell by your logic I could even turn it around and murder them with impunity if they hit me repeatedly.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But they will probably also get you for Disorderly Conduct, and if the person who you are trying to instigate has better judgement than you and doesn't strike you then only you get to see the judge.
Believe it or not, most people have the self control to not hit a person just for saying things to them.
To put this in a real world perspective, did you ever wonder how those bastards from Westboro Baptist Church get their money? They get right out in public spaces and say things they know will be inflammatory and make people want to strike them. But a what many people don't know is many of the family members are lawyers - they make a lot of money by getting people to hit them and then suing them.
Calling a gay man a faggot, telling the father of a Soldier who just died his son is going to hell for being a fag lover at the funeral- all that is disgusting, and makes people, myself included, wish to punch them to shut them up. But you can't, and they in fact make a lot of money egging people on- even more so because when a court awards them legal fees, they are their own in house lawyers so they keep all that.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)ass is a specific threat (at least where I come from), assuming it's not said as a joke or otherwise nonseriously. "Honey if you don't take the trash out I'm going to kick your ass"
I would not hit someone for calling me a faggot, a cunt, a bitch, telling me I'm going to hell, etc - even if they were 3 inches from my face. But if someone says they're going to kick my ass, I would. I would interpret that as they're about to hit me. Again, assuming it's not a joke or not a real threat (just the ramblings of a drunk idiot or uncouth jackass).
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Both the law and case history that determines exactly how it is applie in your state.
It may be different where you are, but here in NC just making threats alone is simply not enough justification to respond with violence- the law will see both parties as guilty of different offenses.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)the south... no offense, just an entirely different world than where I grew up culturally speaking.
county sheriff? I wonder if you were a county sheriff in North Carolina? Your comment about people carrying loaded hand guns was correct after I researched it. You have to forgive me, even though I'm a military veteran, I'm not a gun nut. I didn't think I would be fighting in a War zone in the U.S. And I have had run ins with certain rambos playing cop, after they left service. I know exactly the type because I had to supervise them. Especially when they take that attitude into African American neighborhoods, so you are not fooling me. I've had to contain my cool with these idiots.
I didn't realize gun nuts were that paranoid, because ever sense I left the military, I have not found a reason to carry a gun, but with nuts like Zimmerman and these other gun nuts, I guess I better to even the odds, just in case. It doesn't matter the type of gun, all you have do is know how to use it and shoot it. The results are the same. It just takes one shot. I guess that was Trayvon's mistake, to think he could peacefully walk to a store without getting bothered by paranoid nuts like Zimmerman. I've never advocated young African Americans buying guns, but with people like Zimmerman and the attitude comming from these Rambo types, that might be the only solution? What do you think?
As far as Zimmerman goes, he had a criminal record of violence, and the police knew it. Sure he got out of getting convictions through plea bargaining and friends through the police but he had a history of violence. So he was capable of gunning down Trayvon as the Aggressor. So it depends on who is wearing the badge, don't you think? Some people shouldn't be wearing a badge. Some of the biggest racists hide behind badges. I've thought about the run ins I've had with some of them, the only difference is they hide behind the law. And there are plenty in North Carolina. The same assholes that repealed the Racial Justice Act in North Carolina.
I don't think anybody will follow me even if you told them it was legal, or they will find themselves having a problem in court. if I feel they are a threat to me, then they will have even a bigger problem. I don't care who you are, you better state your business if you plan on following me.
Now to Mr Zimmerman. Zimmerman broke rules. He was told never to pursue anyone by Community watch and the head of that association which is a retired Law Enforcement officer stated that. It also states the same requirements for guns and being a member of community watch. It placed emphasis on they are not police officers. So just like he got away with other abuses, he is being excused here. He knew the rules even before that 911 operator advised him not to do so.
The man is a liar, just like all gun nuts, and physcopaths. I'll throw today's racists in that group also. They can't help themselves. It gives them a sense of power over people they think is weak. Some people don't turn the other cheek thugh like me.
So you got this pyschopathic liar, who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, if the police did their jobs, roaming the residence as community watch captain. Yeah, the same person that had a republican Judge Nelson and every rightwing gun nut claims "run of the Mill," incidents, such as assault against a police officer and domestic violence against a female.They are very strict in North Carolina when it comes to assaulting a female.
You also have another incident of alleged violence shoved under the table by the police,rearending another motorist because he got angry about him spitting gum out his window. Zimmerman was the person called the police and thought the man would get away. The police didn't file charges because the man claimed Zimmerman rear ended his car, all the way to his parking garage. He tailgated that man all the way to his house and the man thought he was crazy. Zimmerman's excuse was the man spitted on his car. Does that sound like a person capable of hunting down Trayvon Martin because he thought he might get away with something? A person like that follow me with a gun, I'm going to have my own gun. They hide behind the law and the law protects them.
So this predator or terrorist hides behind the laws and the police protect's him. They try to get in law enforcement, so they can prey on innocent people. What his cousin reportedly said is very interesting, regarding race and some of his family members. She claims that he was selective about which Blacks to be friends with. Those that act white according to her. The FBI needs to have a talk with her. Racists are very clever these days and adjust, to be more deceptive. Just because they befriend a ClarenceThomas does not mean they aren't racist. Even Confederate Officers took their Black attendents with them to battle.
I can really have a long talk with you though on certain matters, since we come from different perspectives. I'm familiar with both typesTrayvons and the Zimmermans. Trayvon Martin don't even have a violent criminal record. The only violent record he has now, was given by George Zimmerman and his supporters.
I'm going to give you one case, for you to research. That is right, I'm going to let you do the work. I'm particular about who I do work for. Mixon versus Sate in 1952 concerning self defense and initial aggressor. I've found many mre cases but I will keep them in reserve. If you are not satisfied with that case then I'll feed you more to look up.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I wasn't "the" County Sheriff, as in the one that is elected, but I was a deputy.
As for Blacks, or any minority, buying guns, I don't see it any different than white folk buying guns- to assume that it takes a more special reason because of the color of your skin is to fell into the trap they set for you long ago. It is a personal question only you can ask, and only you can answer.
I will say this- for as long as there have been guns in this country, the racists have done their best to keep them only in the hands of whites. Before the Civil War my ancestors lived free in NC, but the laws prevented "non-whites" from being armed, and that left them open to abuse by the whites- look up what a "tied mule" incident was and how they used that against the Lumbee people. After the war a whole host of gun control laws were passed in the south, with the intent being to only apply them to blacks.
Heck, NC still has one on on the books- the pistol purchase permit law. It says that to buy any pistol you need a permit from the sheriff. But is gives very wide latitude on what criteria that a sheriff can use, so they worked them so that blacks couldn't get them easily. I grew up in Gaston County, and at that time there sheriff required a letter of reference from a "person of upstanding moral character" in the county with your application- and if that letter was good enough was entirely arbitrary, with the understanding that "upstanding moral character" meant white without a criminal record. I can still remember my dad having to get one of the white guys down at the VFW or AMVETS write him a letter so he could buy a .22 pistol. Essentially to buy a handgun you had to go get permission slip from a white guy, then have other white guys judge if you really needed it.
There are many more examples. But what I am saying is that the remains of this oppression are still there in the culture. Many minorities act like they are not worthy or deserving of the ability to defend themselves, because we have been conditioned by all those years of the white man saying "you don't need that". But ask yourself- if they went to all that effort to keep you and your ancestors from doing it, why? Because you can't oppress of victimize those with the means to fight back, especially when you are a bunch of KKK type cowards. They depended on the law to keep the black man defenseless.
On Mixon Vs State, that case has some of the rare circumstance where the pursuer can be considered the aggressor- but that case is very different from this one. The fight started earlier, then both parties parted ways, one went to his home, obtained a gun, got in his car, raced to catch up, and continued the confrontation. That is a world of difference apart for this case, where the prosecution couldn't even offer proof Zimmerman wasn't walking back to his car as he claimed. The most important distinction is that in this case there was a prior fight (or "difficulty" as they called it then) before the later conflict. Had Zimmerman and Trayvon traded blows, then parted, then Zimmerman caught up with him again than Mixon would apply. But key to Mixon is that the following was coming after a fight between the parties had already occurred- so in essence the pursuer was aggressively continuing the fight in his pursuit. That case does not allow for only following to be considered provocation.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to shoot.
I know the gun cultists think their guns give them the right to say anything, kick sand in people's face, or control things. But, that is why toting needs to be restricted.
The armed Zimmermans need to respect people, and guns are disrespectful.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Than maybe that rises to the level.
But as even the prosecution conceded it was concealed, that really doesn't work in this example.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Trayvon knew that the bigot stalking him was not unarmed, an that assumes bigot boy didn't have his gun drawn the whole time. My guess is he did.
Fact is, from the moment bigot boy strapped that gun on, he was ready to kill.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)99% of people who carry you would never have a clue.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)how many cartridges you have in magazine and whether you have one in chamber.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)playing right along with the defense's theory and logic. Just what evidence do you have the gun was concealed, other than the words of the defendant?
Do you carry your gun around with it loaded and the precaution off in your holster, and just who taught you do so? And to give you a hint on my knowledge, I'm a military veteran that knows about safety prevention and how to use weapons. I've also served as a security officer, when I served on active duty. The only time I would lock and load a weapon is when I am actually going to use it on someone and not just carelessly carry it in a holster.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)he had his piece and would use it on an unarmed black kid, given the "opportunity." I think a lot of gun nuts are like that.
I was deputy, and I am certified to teach CCW.
Carry with a round in the chamber is common and accepted. Cops do it on and off duty, the vast majority of concealed carry is done with a round in the chamber.
I am also military, and how the military handles weapons is a whole lot different than the rest of the world. The are way overzealous on virtually every aspect- I could go off on how military culture breeds some foolish stuff like that, but that is a subject for another day.
Carry with a round in the chamber is common, accepted, it is how I was taught and how I teach.
As for the "precaution", I am assuming you mean safety and don't know the proper term- if you are claiming Zimmerman had his safety off, it shows your ignorance on gun safety, despite your claims to the contrary. The gun he was carrying is designed without an external manually operated safety, like many modern handguns the safeties are internal and automatic. There was nothing for him to switch off.
Not sure why you even brought up the fact his gun was loaded, but it is pretty irrelevant unless you are trying to make a point to those ignorant about guns that is dependent on using their ignorance to create a false impression.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)My military experience is Army Reserve, almost 20 years now. In a very non-combat MOS, admittedly.
As for why I left LE, a lot of things timed out. A new sheriff was elected, and here in NC all deputies serve at the will of the Sheriff, so he can hire and fire at will. He reorganized, let a lot of people go, hired some people he wanted on, and told me the only position now open for me was School Resource Officer.
I didn't want to do that, and my unit was deploying in 9 months. So they had money to bring some of us part timers in on order prior to the deployment. So I went ahead and quit, as I had another small agency that was going to hold my credentials, and stayed on active duty doing schools and admin work and such for most of the next 9 months, then we deployed.
But, right before I left to deploy the agency that was holding my credentials got a new chief who didn't like that the old one was doing lots of people favors and keeping them on the books- so I lost that, didn't have time to get a new agency to hold it, and by the time I got back between that and some other issues I was no longer current.
In retrospect I should have just taken the SRO job, then gone on military leave, and I would have been good. But I was pretty pissed because friends had been let go and I was being shuffled to a job I didn't want, so I made the wrong choice.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)m, then got in his face in an aggressor manner.
When you combine those three events that is what makes it reasonable for TM to have feared for his life and safety.
If someone followed me in a truck staring at me, I would not engage in violence. No "what are you looking at" followed by a punch. Maybe a "why the fuck are you staring at me?" but certainly no violence.
If someone yelled at me "WHO ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOU DOING THERE" I'd tell him what the fuck is your problem, I'm just walking home.
But if some dude does a, b, and c I'd think he's some nut who is not going to let me go on my way and is an imminent risk of violence to me.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)The location of the body and other physical evidence, I disagree.
Not saying z is innocent, but there is entirely too much reasonable doubt to suggest he meets the standard of guilt in this country.
The way it goes.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)rather a guilty man go free than an innocent convicted. I think he's just beyond (on the guilty side) the reasonable doubt side, but I can see how others would put him slightly on the innocent side too.
But I think... outside of Florida's "not allowed to sue people who justifiably use self defense" nonsense, I think his ass should be damn well nailed to the wall in civil court. I think any juror who would side with him in civil court is a nut him or herself.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)I feel strongly that ALL civil suits should be abolished in the case of a notguilty verdict in a self defense case. I find it abusive and vindictive and should be included as double jeopardy. Ex cases of misconduct where the Feds need to step in to prove institutional bias.
If a court/ jury finds a self defense shoot justified, it's totally chickenshit that you can sue for civil damages merely because the standard of proof is lower. The greater of defenses should stand to end this abuse of tort and I'd like to see it added to any tort reform this country attempts.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)proven NOT guilty, they are not proven innocent.
So yes you should be able to see if a jury is willing to use the lower burden of proof to see if said person is innocent or not. And it's not double jeopardy, because only money is involved in civil court.
It's not chickenshit, carrying a gun is chickenshit (hey you went there first, so don't cry when I turn it back on you). Said from a woman who does not carry a gun and is not scared of other human beings.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Crickets .
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)BULLSHIT !!! I'm profiling you as a troll .
onenote
(42,758 posts)While there is logic in what you write, it does not square with the law of self defense as it has existed for well over a hundred years. While it is true that you don't have to throw the first punch, or any punch, to be an "aggressor" ineligible to claim self defense, it is not a given that following someone, even while armed, makes one an aggressor.
The Supreme Court discussed this question in 1896. The word "difficulty" in this instance is synonymous with quarrel or confrontation.
"Where a difficulty is intentionally brought on for the purpose of killing the deceased, the fact of imminent danger to the accused constitutes no defénce; but where the accused embarks in a quarrel with no felonious intent, or malice, or premeditated purpose of doing bodily harm or killing, and under reasonable belief of imminent danger he inflicts a fatal wound, it is not murder. Whart. Hom. § 197; 2 Bish. Cr. L. §§ 702, 715; 4 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 675; State v. Partlow, 472*472 90 Missouri 608; Adams v. People, 47 Illinois, 376; State v. Hays, 23 Missouri, 287; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vermont, 491; Reed v. State, 11 Tex. App. 509."
In other words, for the state to establish that Zimmerman had provoked the confrontation that led to Trayvon's death (in a legal, rather than logical sense), it would have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would have reasonably interpreted Zimmerman's actions as posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. And the fact that Zimmerman was armed would only be relevant if the evidence established that Trayvon was aware of that fact at the time he was being followed.
In short, the law sets the barrier very high to establish provocation. Trayvon had a right to act in self defense, but the prosecution had the burden of convincing the jury that that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed they faced imminent death or great bodily harm. What those "circumstances" is something that, in a case like this, is extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't for a moment condone a single thing that Zimmerman did and I think he lied through his teeth. The problem is that the burden of proof makes it very hard to prove out a case in a situation like this one.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)it made it very hard for GZ to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt he was the aggressor. I think he was, no question about it if the question is "was GZ more likely the aggressor or was TM the aggressor". In court my personal belief if he was beyond a reasonable doubt but I can see it being... ehhh let's put it this way. Barely beyond a reasonable doubt.
napi21
(45,806 posts)on MSNBC. Throwing the first punch determines the aggressor in the fight. As I understand their argument, if YOU threw the first punch then YOU started the fight and can't then say I got in over my head and was scared.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Here's a scenario, different to GZ and Tayvon. Suppose you're caught in an alley by 3 guys bigger than you. They approach you in a menacing way, using unfriendly language. You fear for your life, your physical well-being, your money...all of the above. If you decide your best course of action is to thump one of them to reduce the odds to 2 vs 1, have started the fight?
Suppose instead of 3 guys, it's just one guy, but you have exactly the same fears. You throw the first punch...
I am not a lawyer, but as a layman I'd have sympathy for the guy who felt the need to throw a defensive first punch.
onenote
(42,758 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 20, 2013, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)
you not only could throw the 'first' punch, you could have pulled out a gun and shot one of them. And if the other two continued to menace you after you shot one of them, you could shoot a second one. And if the third guy still didn't back off and you still reasonably feared for your life, you could shoot him too.
Ultimately, however, it will be up to a jury to decide whether you really believed that your life was in imminent danger life and whether a reasonable person in your circumstances would have shared that fear.
If you actually believed (and a reasonable person would have believed) that if you did nothing they still wouldn't kill or maim you, you can't shoot them. But you might have still been justified in using non-deadly force to prevent them from committing a crime against you. At that point, if they responded to your use of non-deadly force with an escalation of the threat against you to the point where you now fear for your life or limb, then you could shoot them.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)But napi's lawyers seemed to be arguing that if you threw the first punch, you are the aggressor.
But as you say, context is everything. Proving it might not be so easy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)away from a kid. Zimmerman's lawyers were lucky, the jurors appear to have been typical southern bigots, scared of the boogieman. Harper Lee wrote about it.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)look at the phone log. He was getting so many phone calls that he had to let some go to voicemail but made sure to respond to the young man who was at home waiting for the skittles (I guess so he wouldn't be scared?). Those calls came in the last minutes of his life, he was stopping and looking at his phone several times while talking, sometimes answering sometimes letting it go. He didn't have time to come up with this master-mind plan of attack on Zimmerman.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/June_27_Exhibits_and_Identification_List.pdf
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/1/92244/82226/crimenews/Trayvon-Martin-s-Cell-Phone-Records
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you decide to kill a stranger in a strange place with your bare hands.
if it had been a white person no one would have bought it.
the only reason anyone would buy it is that they imagined black teens as superstrong beasts who murdered at the drop of a hat.
marshall
(6,665 posts)He had no idea that Z had a gun, but he and Jeantel both thought Z was cruising him or trying to follow him home to get his hands on his brother. Nothing has been followed up on this, but I assume it will be if anything goes forward. Was the neighborhood plagued with men aggressively seeking sexual favors? We're there predators who were known in the community, and if so what was their description?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)marshall
(6,665 posts)It makes sense when you put the pieces together. I wouldn't discount Jeantel's testimony, both sworn and to media.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)marshall
(6,665 posts)The matters are very complicated, and don't really fit neatly into any one group's meme. I do understand your point that disparate groups have picked up on Jeantel's testimony for various unknown reasons of their own. That doesn't make it untrue, but it does mean as with anything involving human beige, things are complex.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Library before hanging out your shingle. What occurred prior to the confrontation between the two men is irrelevant by law, which is why is wasn't admitted into evidence. BTW, intent is only relevant if the crime specified is what is known as a 'specific intent crime'.
yardwork
(61,703 posts)That's obvious from the statements that five of them made to the media after their pathetic verdict. We haven't heard from the sixth. It's possible that she wasn't a racist but simply went along with the other five.
MaeScott
(878 posts)....grabbing him. TM 's hoodie string was found almost out of the hood. RJ said she heard TM say get off me.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)But the jury can't convict someone on a hunch. There is reasonable doubt. And that's why they acquitted.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)Rachel Jeantel who testified Trayvon Martin said 'Shit, he's behind me' followed very quickly by 'Get off, get off'.
Her testimony was completely disregarded by the jury, by the media and by many, many others yet she was, by ear, a witness who was 'with' Trayvon Martin' until just before he was killed by Zimmerman.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Aside from her inconsistencies about the hospital and her age etc...
Her statement was taken with Martin's mother and lawyer a few feet away from her.
Additionally, I think any jury in any case would give less credence to a close friend than they would an impartial witness.
In other words, a mother or a girlfriend saying something positive about their son or boyfriend is less likely to be believed than someone with no connection.
It goes the same way for Zimmerman. Did anyone on the jury really expect his mother to say anything other than "That's my son?"
In contrast, the report of Martin's father who initially said "That's not my son" probably did have a huge impact and you could see him try to take it back.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)her lies about being in the hospital and her age have NOTHING to do with the incident and her testimony on the stand.
Oh, and Trayvon's father testified he did NOT say "That's not my son", check his testimony again.
To repeat, what inconsistencies were found in her testimony on the stand?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)I said she had issues as a witness...
In earlier statements she had said that Martin had first asked Zimmerman, “Why you following me,” to which Zimmerman had responded, she said, “What are you talking about?”
Later that changed to "What are you doing around here?". Much more confrontational...
Additionally, any statement should be suspect to more scrutiny when it is taken in front of a grieving mother and her lawyer. That was just stupid on Crump's part.
All the defense has to say was to get her to admit, which she did, that it affected her statement. She might as well have just not made it at that point.
As for the father. The police reported that he initially and clearly denied that it was his son. Martin backed that up and said that he meant he was unsure at the time and after listening to it many times he had decided at a later point that it was his son.
Complete loss of credibility....
Spazito
(50,451 posts)and I believe it was Zimmerman, in his police interview, who said he said "What are you talking about", it was not Rachel Jeantel.
If any statement should be subject to more scrutiny it would be that of the defendant as no one has a greater self-interest than the one accused of the crime of 2nd degree murder, would you not agree?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)However, he was able to provide witnesses and forensic evidence that supported his version of events. (Gun forensics, multiple eye and "ear" witnesses and of course the fact that he was the only one with wounds from a fight)
The state's case hinged solely on trying to pick apart his version and not offering a cogent one of their own with any evidence to back it up. Even their closing statements were an appeal to emotion and not facts presented. "Listen to your heart...."
Spazito
(50,451 posts)Rachel Jeantel's ear witness testimony. To say the State didn't provide evidence is grossly misleading, imo. The State did, indeed, say 'listen to your heart but that was said during the rebuttal, their main closing dealt with the evidence. The defense asked the jury to leave their common sense out of it, is that dealing with the evidence?
We can debate until the 'cows come home' you believe what you believe for your reasons and I believe what I believe for my reasons. I found Rachel Jeantel credible, you, it seems, found Zimmerman credible.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)probably wanted to believe what she said. If I had been on the jury, I would have looked at the lies she had been caught telling and figured if she would lie about that, she would lie about what other stuff, too.
The most credible witnesses would have been those who had no vested interest in the outcome of the trial--John Good, for example.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)I can't even call him a witness given he did not testify, "probably wanted to believe what he said". The lies she told were about not being able to face seeing Trayvon's body so she said she was in the hospital instead and lied about her age because she didn't want to go through what she ended up going through. They were NOT, in any way, related to the shooting of Trayvon Martin and what she heard that night.
John Good, you mean the witness that participated in the making of the animation for the defense even though he was still under sequestration orders not to discuss the case with ANYONE, that John Good?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)She seems like someone who is perfectly okay with lying when it's convenient for her.
"She didn't want to go through what she went through?"
She was the most important witness for the prosecution!
If she wanted justice for Trayvon, trying to weasel out of cooperating with the prosecution was a crappy way to go about getting it.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)Those are her thoughts, her words written for her by a friend. Wow, talk about a desperate reach to discredit her. If that's all you have then you have nothing.
Your empathy for a young woman of 19 who realized she was the last person to speak to her friend who, within approximately a minute was shot and killed, is underwhelming but to be expected. . I guess she should have been on the phone trying to set up an interview or something. Geez.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
And why are so many people so far in denial about her illiteracy?
Spazito
(50,451 posts)The letter had NOTHING, repeat NOTHING to do with the night when Trayvon Martin was shot and killed yet your posts are all about denigrating a young woman. Your posts attacking Rachel Jeantel are beyond nauseating but, sadly, completely expected.
You don't know if she is illiterate or not, and whether she is or not has NOTHING to do with what she heard the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. Keep digging that hole, it's getting impressively deep.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)She's a liar and she was the star witness for the prosecution.
You think the jurors didn't all facepalm the second she admitted that she didn't actually write it? How about the prosecution team? Trayvon's parents? The bailiff? The press? The judge? Everyone else in the courtroom?
I bet the only people in the room who weren't totally mortified on her behalf were Zimmerman and his team. I bet they thought Christmas had come early.
Zimmerman walked because the prosecution totally screwed up. Putting Rachel Jeantel on the stand totally crippled any chance they ever had of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense. "In my mind I thought it was just a fight?" Quoting Trayvon as having referred to Zimmerman as a nigger and a cracker? Saying to Zimmerman's attorney, "That's real retarded, sir?"
Kato Kaelin came off as a huge flake in the OJ trial. Rachel Jeantel came off as a huge flake in this trial.
She's an adult and a public figure and her testimony was a total mess.
Even though she should have been able to provide the framework for an alternative narrative of what happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon, instead she came off as someone who just makes stuff up when it's convenient for her. Including lying about having written a really simple letter to Trayvon's mother.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)supported Zimmerman's account.
Whereas Trayvon's account was supported by a girl who came off as a moron on the stand.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)and she told lies that she certainly known could easily have been proven to be lies. She may have had a reason for lying, about both those points, but did she really think that they wouldn't be easily proven false? If I had been on the jury, I would have considered her testimony, and thought to myself, "If she would lie about her age, and about being in the hospital, what else might she lie about?"
John Good--I had not idea he had helped in making that cartoon.
I wasn't able to follow the entire trial, as I was at work. I caught up on the highlights after I got home. Needless to say, if you didn't follow it minute by minute, you lost out on a lot of stuff.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)not have to see the body of her friend who had been shot approximately one minute after she was talking to him and a lie about her age, saying she was one or two years younger than she was were lies having NOTHING to do with the night Trayvon Martin was shot.
If I were a juror I would have heard no evidence of inconsistencies in her testimony, even the defense could not find any that were related to the night about which she was testifying.
I guess if either you or I were on the jury it would have deadlocked as we would have 'stood our ground' having 'no duty to retreat'.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)counter story of just how it happened and instead decided to "let the jury decide" and I think in the end it was that lack of a clear counter story and counter narrative that presented a lot of difficulty. They acknowledged a confrontation, and a fight, but could only imply that Z already had the gun out OR pulled the gun as T was backing up off him.
There is absolutely no doubt Z lied like hell on many points, and that was because he was worried he did not have enough to justify his use of force and didn't want there to be any doubt about that.
The prosecution actually put on a good case with what they had, but I think their errors were failure to push manslaughter only and that narrative, and to not offer a clear counter version of what they think the evidence shows to have happened.
John2
(2,730 posts)you watched. I don't remember the bald headed attorney's name for Zimmerman, but he badgered the witness for hours, and asked the witness, the same questions over and over.
That was more like an interrogation, as if the witness was on Trial. It got the witness upset and frustrated with answering the same questions, over and over. That was ridiculous, and I have never seen a witness treated with so much disrespect. The prosecution didn't object and the judge allowed it, instead of telling the attorney to move on, after the witness already answered the same question, two and three times.
All it did was confuse the witness, because she wanted to get off the stand and got upset with the defense attorney. If he did that to me, I would have humiliated him,in more ways than one. She did at one time when she called him retarded. If he continued to ask me the same questions over in that manner, I would have inquired about his hearing or if he needed an interpreter, because I already answered his question. If the judge objected to my response, I would have asked her if my answer could be read back to him from the court stenographer. If she wanted to place me in contempt, than so be it, because his questions was answered two and three times over. The judge should be looked at and the way she unfairly conducted the court. She was a Republican right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)His father was in shock. He said it was not his son because he did not want to believe his son was dead.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... her testimony was tainted by the situation in which her initial statement was taken, her inconsistencies about age, funeral etc..
She could have told the truth, exactly as she believed it, and she was not likely to be believed based on those factors alone.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)this like some other people.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... because you have clearly picked a side in the conflict in addition to your total and complete saturation by the media.
In theory, all the jury heard was what i told you and it totally destroyed her credibility. Accept it or not...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is clear that some jury members came with preconceived notions, and out to make money off of the killing of an innocent kid.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Not even counting SYG...
This never would have made it past a Grand Jury and that is why it was skipped. There was no way they were going to meet the legal standard and they never even came close.
That is what interests me...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)to him. Yeah we know what side you are on!
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)the side of the killer.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)who
1) Was illiterate,
2) Mouthed off to half the people in the courtroom,
3) Was unable to speak standard English in an intelligible manner,
4) Was caught in a number of lies,
5) Was a 20-year-old senior in high school,
and
6) Repeatedly tried to duck out of helping the prosecution entirely,
would you consider her a believable witness?
And what do you think the attitude here on DU would be?
Racism isn't just about thinking people of x race are bad, it's also excusing behavior from people of other races that wouldn't be tolerated in one's own race.
Rachel wasn't the one on trial, but she had serious problems as a witness, and I think she was the best thing that could have happened for the defense.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She had a low voice and that is why she was hard to understand. She speaks three languages, more than most in this nation.
She was a reluctant witness, I understand that, but that does not mean she lied.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Deny it all you want: the girl cannot read or write at a functional level.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)but even if she was, who do you think you are passing judgment on her?
What's your excuse for being so disgustingly nasty about a private citizen that has done nothing to harm you? Is there some reason you feel compelled to spend your time dumping on the least advantaged in this country? 
Your man got off with murder and will likely kill someone else before long. Isn't that enough to satisfy you?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)We're discussing her credibility as a witness and I don't think she was a very credible witness.
One of several reasons for my thinking that she's not very credible is her illiteracy.
Being literate is so basic to being an informed and functioning citizen that I think it damages her testimony and makes me less likely to believe her when she talks about what she heard that night.
She shouldn't have gotten out of first grade without being able to read and write, but she's supposedly going to be a senior in high school? How did this happen?
I know it's more about her family and the system and the fact that we as a society are totally accepting of egregiously low "standards" when it comes to educating our poorest members, but still, I can't imagine how impoverished my intellectual life would be if I was unable to read and write.
I seriously believe that if a white chick had gotten up there with exactly the same credentials, DU would lead the outraged charge, but because she's black, most people here are like "Well, she comes from a different culture so it's okay to be unable to read more than your name." That's nonsense. We should have universal literacy in the United States, and the fact that there are people like Rachel should be a stirring call for action, and not another place to make excuses.
(And FYI, Zimmerman's not "my man." He should have gone down for manslaughter, but I think the prosecution's case left the door wide open for reasonable doubt. Rachel's testimony should have NAILED ZIMMERMAN TO THE WALL, but instead she looked like a total flake.)
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)she may have literacy issues does not mean her testimony was inaccurate. It is natural she didn't want to go through that multi hour grilling which she knew was coming having already gone through the deposition. She was quite honest in saying that Trayvon said, "Some creepy cracker is following me." THAT was TRUE and shows she was honest. Her testimony showed he was scared and being creeped out by the creepy Zimmerman. Let's go easy on this young person. Sheesh.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and she was all over the place.
Since the trial she's given two interviews where she directly contradicted what she said at the trial.
She's not a reliable witness.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and she was unable to read the letter that she claimed to have written.
Being unable to read and write on a basic level makes her functionally illiterate.
If you have some evidence of literacy that goes beyond tweets and being able to print her name like a second grader, I'll retract my claim.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They do not teach script in many schools today.
She speaks 3 languages, how many do you speak?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Although I can write in cursive, I ordinarily use print. If I wanted to write a handwritten letter to someone, I wouldn't be ashamed of printing it out.
Do you seriously believe that this girl had someone else write the letter for her because she was so effete that she just simply couldn't send a letter not written in cursive?
Look at how she "signs" her name:
There's no actual handwriting there. She's not writing the letters; she's drawing them out like a very young grade schooler.
Also note that even though the penmanship here is nice, the words don't make any sense and the vocabulary, pacing, and sentence structure make it sound like something a small child would say.
"I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard. He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story."
For a letter to Trayvon's mom, it's incredibly short and it almost comes off as callous. There's no "Dear Mrs. Fulton" or anything along the lines of "I'm sorry for your loss." The "Thank you" at the end is bizarre in this context. It's like she's never "written" a letter before and is unfamiliar with the conventions of the genre. And she didn't even "sign" it with her own name.
She may speak three languages, but that doesn't mean she's not illiterate in every meaningful sense of the word.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The fact that you feel the need to degrade her is disturbing to me. Think whatever you please!
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Take this writing sample
I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard. He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.
and plug it in here
http://sarahktyler.com/code/sample.php
and tell the class what you find.
I said elsewhere that I am bigoted against ignorant people. A 19-year-old Junior in high school who cannot read or write (or speak anything more complicated than second-semester English as a foreign language even though she's lived here for at least 16 years) is IGNORANT to a point where I think her credibility is damaged.
She might be smart, she might be super nice, she might be the bestest friend anybody ever had, but she's certainly not educated to any kind of minimal standard.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just because a person is less educated than you does not mean they are not capable of telling the truth.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)both during the trial and before the trial?
Being illiterate doesn't make her a liar, but it does make her less credible, at least to me. I simply can't credit a 19-year-old woman who cannot read as having any critical thinking skills whatsoever.
Having lied, however, does make her a liar.
Maybe she thought she had good reasons for lying about her age, why she didn't go to the funeral, why she didn't actually write the letter that she claimed to have written, and so forth, but I don't know where her ability to rationalize her own misrepresentations ends, and that makes her not a credible witness.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and she waves her hands and says, "I read 'em all!" and I point out how asinine that is, am I denigrating the Thrilla from Wasilla?
If W chokes on a pretzel and I point out how moronic that is, am I denigrating Pretzel Boy?
If Cheney shoots a guy in the face and I point out how totally insane that is, am I denigrating ol' Crashcart?
No! They're all idiots and criticizing them is totally valid!
So if Rachel Jeantel can't read and didn't tell the truth, how is mentioning those two facts denigrating to her?
She's a sad person and the educational system, her parents, and society have seriously let her down, but that doesn't mean that it's fine and dandy to pretend that she doesn't have very serious problems, both as a person and as a witness.
To bust out the NYTimes's summary of a speech W gave:
No child in America should be segregated by low expectations, imprisoned by illiteracy, abandoned to frustration and darkness of self-doubt. . . .
Now some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less -- the soft bigotry of low expectations. . . .
It is a scandal of the first order when the average test scores of African-American and Latino students at age 17 are roughly the same as white 13-year-old's. Whatever the cause, the effect is discrimination. Children who never master reading will never master learning. They will face a life of frustration on the fringes of society. . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/03/us/excerpts-from-bush-s-speech-on-improving-education.html
If this chick was white, would you think it was okay that she's 19 and has ostensibly passed her junior year in high school, but she can't read or write? If you wouldn't accept it from a white chick, then why is it okay from a black chick?
"Oh, but she's black and black kids all talk like that and she speaks Ebonics and she grew up in a non-English-speaking household and English is her third language and she has an underbite and she never learned cursive and she was sick and she missed three years of school... and... and... and...."
Growing up in Oakland, I went to school with kids with all these disadvantages and more, and most of them seemed to get through it okay. I also went to school with kids who were in the 6th grade and struggled to sound out simple words.
Lemme tell ya: being illiterate is more damaging to Miss Jeantel's self esteem than anything I could possibly say here.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)Tom Joyner has offered her tutoring and a college scholarship. She'll be able to obtain an education and improve her life. Whatever it is in you that prompts you to be so inexplicably unpleasant toward a private citizen minding her own business--a disadvantaged teenager--is not so easily overcome.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)She didn't ask for this bullshit. It's ugly.
John2
(2,730 posts)on this very issue you use. Jeantel did not lie about any of those inconsistencies, when she was placed under oath and on the stand, in front of a national audience and the jury.
I did notice double standards when it came to Good and Jeantel's testimony. All Good did was claimed he clarified his original statements by adding in more information, which helped Zimmerman. When Jeantel did the same, it was called inconsistencies. She also gave a reasonable explanation on the stand why she didn't want to go to the funeral or reveal her real age. None of that was material at all. So why make a big deal out of it, because they didn't charge her with perjury?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... all they had to do was discredit her testimony. A task at which they succeeded.
They are defense lawyers remember...
He was smart about it as well. Instead of attacking her, he attacked the method and the people (the prosecution and Martin family lawyer) that forced her to take her statement in such a coercive environment.
As far as Good goes, his initial statements came across as describing the violent "ground and pound" which the defense latched onto.
Any additional statements afterwards walking that back came across as petty and technical. "So you didn't see any of the punch like motions aimed at Mr. Zimmerman's head actually connect with his head" and so on and so on...
I have no earthly idea why they called that man. Second best witness for the defense after the medical examiner that proved Martin was on top.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Trayvon had a drink and Skittles and Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was told to back off and he did not. Anything Zimmerman says is self-serving and not believable.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... and the state did not. It's just that simple.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Zimmerman killed a kid. He was a legend in his own mind and he killed an innocent kid.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)The gun forensics that showed with near certainty that Martin was on top, leaned over knocked it out of the park.
Tie that in with statements from the prosecution's witnesses and it was over. The rest was fluff... Maybe not the Vietnam combat medic. That was also compelling.
Oh, last thing, as I've said before the other strong point is that Zimmerman provided a minute by minute breakdown of his actions. Believe them or don't. The state never did that and it destroyed them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Zimmerman started it and Trayvon may have gotten on top at one point and Zimmerman filled with Racist hate killed him on purpose.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)That's what you think and it fits your narrative. Bravo...
No evidence to back it up, to include the racist part.
It is and should be about what you can prove. Remember the whole liberal concept of better 100 men go free than 1 innocent suffer?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The only innocent is Trayvon! Why are you so convinced of Zimmermans innocence?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)My hobby in this whole thing is getting people to think critically about something that they are running on pure emotion with. If I could find someone who did the same thing for Zimmerman, I'd throw water on their party as well.
Think about the statement...
Better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent suffer....
It means that we should have an intentionally high bar of proof before we take away someone's life. Additionally, it means that we accept that a few guilty ones will get away with their crimes but the payoff is that an innocent person will not be unjustly incarcerated or punished.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I only ask because I have not had the pleasure of debating you on political issues.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)which is the problem with the entire case against Trayvon.
The fact that his clothing was two inches away from his body when the shot was fired is not proof that he was leaning over; he could be in movement in many different directions at the time of the shot and had the same powder pattern on his body, as the shirt floated away from the body.
and the prosecutions witnesses were no more believable than the defense witnesses. They mostly canceled each other out. There is no convincing evidence about who was yelling for help, or who was on top.
Zimmerman could have initiated the fight and still ended up on the ground under Trayvon. Zimmerman could have tripped or fell during the fight and broken his own nose, or received the scratches on the back of his head.
Zimmerman's case was tailored to fit the small amount of physical evidence available. That's all.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Cuts and bruises are. Eye witness testimony is. Expert witness testimony is. Like it or not, the defense provided the evidence needed to convince the jury that the state didn't prove its case.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Cuts and bruises are no proof of how the cuts and bruises HAPPENED.
The defense provided reasonable doubt. They didn't make George Zimmerman innocent.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)But there seem to be a lot of people who think he should have been found guilty based on nothing more than "what could have" happened. Anonymous people on a message board all have some wild theory of what happened--"and it's the only thing that makes sense!!!"--and with no evidence feel that someone should have been convicted. Personally, I feel that it is better for 100 guilty to go free than for one innocent to be convicted.
Yes, the testimony of eyewitnesses can conflict, or be inaccurate, and injuries could have happened in numerous ways, etc. But the jury in this case was presented with the best evidence the prosecution had, and they felt it wasn't enough to convict. And in fact, some of the best witnesses for the defense were the prosecution witnesses! Doesn't that tell you anything?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)We will never hear the full story because of that.
The reason this case brought a national reaction was the common experience of black men being profiled. Trayvon died because of this, also by the vigilante instincts of an armed, wannabe cop, private citizen acting on his own.
I thought this was a tough case to prove, and not surprised, but depressed, by the result. It points to the larger issue of profiling, however, and the disparity in justice in America for people of color.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and that's where the justice department should focus.
I get why Z got off at the trial, but I don't get why the cops just totally listened to his side of what happened and were like "Have a good evening, Mr. Zimmerman, sorry for the trouble," without conducting a real investigation. Z is a shady dude, and I was surprised (and slightly dismayed) that the forensic evidence didn't discredit his version of events.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)There was a detective early in the case that thought this was a homicide.
The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)And no, the gun forensics did not show that as there are other scenarios which would also work.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)yourself, while getting lots of your own blood on yourself from a couple of superficial cuts?
zimmy is a fucking liar.
the 'evidence' you mention is not evidence at all.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)1) You should have e-mailed your knowledge of physiology, trauma forensics and bullet forensics to the prosecution team. If only you hadn't waited. I don't think anyone else thought of that.
2) Back to reality. When you shoot someone with a 9mm round, their chest does not explode outward 'Kill Bill' style.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)There's no visible blood.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)came rather late in the game, IIRC. I believe the first time that part of her testimony came out was while she was on the witness stand, nearly 1-1/2 years after the crime. That probably makes it less credible than if she had stated it all along.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)it did not first come out in her testimony on the stand.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)You are right, although she had not said that when she gave her statement to Benjamin Crump.
Spazito
(50,451 posts)when all she wanted to do was be left alone in her grief, she was under no obligation, legally, to speak to Crump at all and what she did or did not say to him had no legal bearing either.
She was consistent in her testimony as to the night Trayvon Martin was shot and what she heard.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Spazito
(50,451 posts)Which interview are you referencing?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Let me introduce you to Reasonable Doubt.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)to intent and motive.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)definition of Intent and Knowledge. The Traditional View of Intent is a crime may be defined in such a way that the defendant, to be guilty of it, must specifically engage in specific conduct to produce a specified result. George Zimmerman intended to pursue Martin and with his gun for that purpose only.
Martin had no intention of having any confrontation with Zimmerman. All events that followed in his interaction with Martin came from Zimmerman's intentions to not let Martin get away.Even if he had to do it with a gun. His motive was his own statements and his prior experiences. It all goes to the legal definition of intent and motive when solving guilt.
Martin had no intent or motive to kill Zimmerman, unless you want to claim Martin wanted to kill Zimmerman because he was a crazy ass cracker and Martin was a racist. That was essentially the claim being made in this case. martin was a hater, racist, thug, whatever and sought to hunt down Zimmerman and beat him to death.
And in Jeantel's words, that was retarded. He didn't know Zimmerman like that. Guess who went for that? Whatever the Defense put out, it was believed. He went straight to the venue for the audience he wanted too, FAUX NEWS. Need I say more.
egduj
(805 posts)But i wasn't there. So it's only a guess.
Tutonic
(2,522 posts)Forces one to consider who was really more believable Rachel Jeantel or George Zimmerman--the last two people that spoke to Trayvon Martin. Interesting that most of the posts I have read in DU assume that Trayvon threw first punch and therefore believe Zimmerman's account to some degree. In doing so, Rachel Jenteal's version (that the head phones and cell phone hit the ground) is likely dismissed. Why?
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)scene have an attitude with the prosecution and lying while under oath (the guy John said when he stepped his one foot outside it was too dark to see the details of what was going on but went on to say that he could see that one person had light skinned hands and one person had dark skinned hands). I didn't hear anyone commenting on them for days and days as they did with Ms. Jeantel. I would put money on Dee-Dee's testimony; she was attitudinous but consistent with her responses.
John2
(2,730 posts)The prosecution called him as their witness and presented him as credible. He should have been a witness for the defense and the prosecution should have attacked him. I saw a lot of areas in his testimony that I could of. You also had the pundits, claiming what a great move it was and making Good a credible witness while they approved of the conduct in questioning Jeantel.
I thought once she answered the questions once or twice was enough. Asking her the same questions, over and over for hours, without any objection from the prosecution or judge exposed this trial for what it was.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)n/t
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)at the drop of a hat. they are superstrong beasts and it's lucky georgie had his gun.
and they stick together. everyone knows that. her testimony has no value.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)SoCalDem (100,230 posts) Sat Jul 13, 2013, 03:16 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023245488
A 5'11" person, grabbed from behind by a 5'7" person, would probably
fling their elbow around....catching the shorter person behind, in the NOSE..
Person behind (startled) , "might" have been knocked off their feet and sent reeling backwards "wet grass & sneakers" onto the drain, concrete, whatever..(creating gravel/pebble on concrete smallish wounds on a bald head)
That person, furious, might just have drawn the gun (if it were not already in his hand)..that could certainly cause the other person to begin screaming for help. (seeing a gun)
If the falling person held onto to clothing grabbed, the taller person (wet grass) could have certainly have been dragged down with the falling person, and a tussle undoubtedly would have occurred as one tried to hold on and the other tried to escape.
That is what I wish the prosecution had proffered..
There would not necessarily have been nose-blood on the elbow of the garment, since the nose may not have instantly bled.
John2
(2,730 posts)is very reasonable given the evidence in the case. It is strenghtened more by the fact Martin was slimmer and Zimmerman was thicker weighing over 40 more pounds. Zimmerman being more thicker and shorter gave him more leverage if they were in a wrestling match.
In a boxing match, Martin would have the advantage, because he is lighter and has longer arms. So it would be to Martin's advantage to keep Zimmerman at a distance. The evidence indicated Zimmerman never threw any punches at Martin. The only use of self defense, he ever used against Martin was his gun. This guy also practiced martial arts. I also just noticed, Zimmerman is a person that like to touch and grab people. I noticed that by observing his interactions with his lawyers and when they shook hands. He didn't seem like he was soft at all and his grip seemed very firm.
avebury
(10,952 posts)kick back of the gun. He did not have the experience of a LEO or military guy and so if he fired the gun in a panic which is real possibility, the gun could have nailed the nose.
I think that GZ attempted to keep TM from leaving because, for once, one of those a**holes was not going to get away. I think that TM was trying to pull away from what he viewed a nut with a gun. The prosecutor stated that one of the drawstrings on the hoodie was pulled out of alignment with the other. I went back and looked at the 7-11 video. It is hard to see but it looked like the strings were even when he was in the store. If that is true, then if GZ tried to restrain TM, the string could have been pulled thereby providing proof that TM was trying to move away from GZ. An injuries to GZ resulting from the scuffle was due to TM's effort to defend himself and justifiable. GZ's injuries were not that serious as evidence by his motor and verbal coordination.
I 1000% believe that GZ was responsible for instigating the altercation and most likely panicked and shot TM. He fell back on his classroom work and framed his story to fit the scenario that his life was in danger. I would not be surprised if his friend who was constantly on the news defending him and they guy that helped him get the gun coached him in the aftermath of the incident which might have made them accessories after the fact. GZ just is not that smart enough to pull if off without help.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)it would have to have been fired from such a close proximity to the face that he would have had powder burns and damage to the eyes as well, and pointed "up" in relation to the face.
And even then, it would be pretty unlikely.
uppityperson
(115,679 posts)
davepc
(3,936 posts)What kind of recoil do you think it has? Have you ever shot one? That idea is laughable.
There is almost no kick to that gun, certainly not enough to wack somebody in the face.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)There have been many who suggested there was a broken nose because of the lack of blood everywhere, including Zimmerman's shirt and jacket.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)I DO know that it must reallllly hurt to get smacked in the schnozzzz...and an angry man with a gun, might just act impulsively..
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)
mzmolly
(51,003 posts)eom
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...indicate he didn't want a "punk" to get away this time. So there's a strong suspicion he tried to physically restrain Martin in some manner. If Martin resisted, it was his right since Z isn't a LEO.
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)
Skittles
(153,192 posts)his ridiculous story would have been SHREDDED
SaveAmerica
(5,342 posts)I have been having a hard time letting this go (I don't know how or if Trayvon's parents have been able to) and I appreciate you helping me with my last thoughts on it.
I know folks want to say that there is a reason for Trayvon's death, there will be a positive from it (and I understand it as a coping mechanism and even a step toward more understanding and change) but I'd rather think of his Mom making a list of stuff that he'll need to start at FSU in a few weeks and how she'll miss him while she's gone but know that he'll be back. And I'd like him to be able to make another 'mistake' that involves weed in a backpack and get angry because he has been having a weird time of it lately. I personally don't want any more young black men to be stacked on the pile that he rests at the top of, the snail's pace turn of hateful people's attitudes toward others who are not like them is not happening fast enough for me.
No more Trayvon's on the pile.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat.
Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
Skittles
(153,192 posts)he confronted Trayvon and got physical and pulled a gun in an effort to detain him - his own words and history back this up - he was the CLEAR AGGRESSOR - NOTHING about Zimmerman's story was reasonable
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)why was there no evidence?
Skittles
(153,192 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)because video evidence might have totally changed the outcome. In the absence of that, we have:
1. Cuts and bruises
2. Eye witnesses
3. Expert testimony
What may be clear to you, was made murky by the above, as testified to by BOTH defense and prosecution witnesses.
Skittles
(153,192 posts)and I am done here- I am SICK of you Zimmerman defenders
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)If anything, I'm defending the process. Do you think a jury of one's peers should disregard physical evidence, expert testimony, and eye witness testimony, and base their decision on what some anonymous posters on an extremely biased website think is CLEAR?? I sure don't. I'll take my chances with facts over emotion any day, and will always believe that it is better for one hundred guilty people to go free than one innocent person be convicted.
I am sorry that you are so biased that you can't see that the state did a crappy job of prosecuting a crappy case. It is what it is. I couldn't watch much of the testimony, but after work I checked several different websites, and DU was the only site that seemed to think the prosecution had even a chance of convincing a jury. Maybe if you got your news from a variety of sources, you wouldn't have been taken by surprise, as you obviously were.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)What the murderer said? That fucking asshole lied from the get-go; only idiots and racists believe him. The only "evidence" were those little tiny scratches on the murderer's head. And, of course, a dead teenager with NO Zimmerman DNA on his hands at all.
THAT is what is fucking clear.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)1. Credible eyewitness testimony.
2. Those "tiny little scratches," which included a broken nose.
3. The expert testimony of one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the world.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
libodem
(19,288 posts)He had his gun in his hand and his finger on the trigger. He may have even meant to just shove the gun into Travon's chest and fired accidentally? Plus he had no injuries when he is on film getting out of the police car on his visit to the police station. He beat himself up later to pad his lies.
Travon was yelling get off me in the back ground. Maybe he was pushed down by Zimmerman and then shot with Zimmerman standing over him?
Sick thing is Zimmerman is allowed to write the false narrative of Travon's last moments on Earth and leave a legacy of lies. I hate that the most.
I'm still waiting for an answer from the poster I requested to go pound a 13 lbs bowling ball into a sidewalk 30 times without mashing a finger or two.
Still waiting for the demo.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
libodem
(19,288 posts)All we have is the word of a known liar. One who has every reason to fabricate a reasonable doubt.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)The forensic evidence back's up Zimmerman's account.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)expert witness who testified to that. In fact, he literally "wrote the book." Years of education and experience made him a very credible witness.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and the medical experts ALL agreed that Zimmerman's head wounds were consistent with being struck against the pavement.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)I read that no GZ DNA was found on Tayvon's hands, despite the fact that Tayvon reportedly punched Zimmerman 20-30 times in the face and bashed his head into the sidewalk. I find that difficult to believe.
And, of course, Tayvon had no opportunity to clean his hands afterwards.
Or is there some misreporting here about GZ's DNA?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and she was a prosecution witness. Combine that with the defense witness confirming that testimony, plus the rain that night and that the ME's office made no attempt to bag Martin's hands means we will never know for certain.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)But what about the abrasions on Trayvon's hands? Did he have any?
BTW, thanks for clearing that up.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There was an abrasion on his left hand ring finger.
Per the testimony of Dr. Di Maio, Martin died before bruises, if there were any, could have become visible and the only way to find out if there was bruising would have been to cut open Martin's hands to look for internal bruising. I don't believe the ME had any reason to go to that degree in the autopsy.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)The only other witness is dead.
I think it's ikely.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)that she was prepared to lie to get Zimmerman convicted. Those who take her seriously either didn't listen to the Florida state attorney's recorded interview of her or they are so biased they can't recognize the obvious. When the state attorney asked her if Martin said anything about Zimmerman coming towards him like he was going to hit him, she said "yeah" and only backed off that statement when he reminded her that he wanted her to tell the truth. The whole interview would have been funny if it weren't so pathetic.
MaeScott
(878 posts)Take the stand.
flvegan
(64,413 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And he'll end up getting book deals and TV appearances and he'll make a fortunte. I bet he gets hired to go to gun shows and stuff. It's sickening. 
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Why would he make the "always get away" comment?
Why would Martin say "Get off! Get off!"?
Why would Martin start attacking someone while he was on the phone and already trying get away from a unidentified stranger stalking him?
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Was Trayvon Martin's right to self defense. Who felt threatened first? It was very likely Martin, as if Zimmerman had felt threatened he could have backed off, remained in his vehicle, and not pursued Martin. But Zimmerman didn't feel threatened, which is why he decided to follow Martin despite being told not to by the 911 operator.
Did Martin not have the right to defend himself when threatened by a man following him around in the darkness? It seems to me he did, which means even if Martin did put hands on Zimmerman first, why was this not viewed as Martin's right to stand HIS ground?
The trial was a disgrace. The jury instructions were inaccurate and incomplete, as they omitted specifics of Florida's stand your ground law. The mention of racial profiling was prohibited during the trial--profiling could be mentioned, but not racial profiling. The jury was prevented from considering "first aggressor." WTF?
Florida’s self-defense law prohibits “initial aggressors” from using force if their own conduct has provoked that force. So if a defendant “initially provokes the use of force” against himself, he cannot claim to have acted in self-defense, unless he withdraws or retreats.
Zimmerman was the initial aggressor because he followed Martin. Who wouldn't fear for their safety having a stranger following them in the dark?
Zimmerman is guilty of murder. He initiated contact, he made the decision to follow Martin, he was armed with a loaded gun ready to fire.
Justice was not served, it was mocked.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)but the jury found that he had ample time to avoid a physical confrontation.
In a situation like that, where so MANY people are able to carry a concealed weapon, the most prudent course of action is to get away as quickly as possible, even if you have the legal right to stand your ground.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)In fact, a physical confrontation would not have happened had it not been for Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin.
A fact conveniently overlooked or disregarded in this trial.
Martin had the same rights Zimmerman had, but his rights were not protected, only Zimmerman's rights were recognized. If the jury instructions had been correct, Zimmerman would have been convicted.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html Section 776.041 paragraph a
Martin has a right to defend himself, he does NOT have the right to initiate the physical altercation and the Prosecution FAILED to prove that Zimmerman struck Martin first or had the gun out when he approached Martin.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Fortunately for Zimmerman, Martin isn't around to tell his side of the story.
Zimmerman didn't need to have his gun out when he approached Martin. In this day and age, when a stranger approaches you in the dark I think most prudent people are justified in being concerned for their safety.
We don't know all the details, because we've only really heard one side of the story. The bottom line is: if Zimmerman had minded his own business and followed the advice of the 911 operator, none of this would have happened. Zimmerman was the instigator, he was the aggressor. If he hadn't been following Martin--if he'd stayed in his vehicle and let the police handle the situation--Martin would still be alive.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and your attempt to avoid that wasn't very good.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Others see it differently. Get a room full of legal experts together, and most will disagree on some aspect of a law.
Why do I get the feeling you're here to disrupt? I think any further time spent on this with you is wasted. 
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)however I cited the chapter and paragraph that CLEARLY explain WHEN an aggressor can use deadly force.
And you're right, since you choose to ignore the law and the facts of this case, conversation with you is a waste of time.
You don't know that Z had his gun out when he approached. No one knows exactly what happened between the two of them, but the evidence presented to the jury supported Z's story. He was the one with cuts and bruises, the back of his clothing was damp, as if he'd been on his back, the most credible eyewitness indicated that Trayvon was on top making hitting motions, and the expert testimony was that Z shot from a prone position while Trayvon was on top.
Any possible scenario that anyone here comes up with is pure speculation, and I would never want to live in a country where a person can be convicted on the speculations of a bunch of non-experts.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Why else would Trayvon said "get off"??