He said he spread his arms out because he thought he had something in his hand.
He didn’t go after him and he didn’t tackle him. At most he rolled him off and spread his arms out looking for what was in his hand. It would have been pretty evident in the seconds that followed that he shot him.
He just got the crap kicked out of him and if Martin had not been shot he still posed a threat. He should have shot him again and would have been justified doing so.
because Martin stopped beating him.
You don’t think the dynamics of the situation changed after he shot Martin? Why would he continue to scream when Martin is now on the ground? You don’t have to believe his story. You have to prove it is false.
Why does it need explaining? We already know he didn’t die immediately after being shot. he could have moved into an infinite number of positions under his own power.
What “mild wounds”? He was injured seriously enough to be entitled to use lethal force, and did so at a point where he couldn’t retreat.
What evidence do you have that anything he did after firing the gun contributed to Martin’s death? Even assuming firstly that Zimmerman started the fight, and secondly that he was no longer in reasonable fear of death or serious injury after firing, there’s no evidence he did anything to cause Martin harm after that point.
Restraining someone who’s been attacking you is not a crime, anyway - it’s pretty the minimum level of force one can use.
Now, if Zimmerman can be proven to have started the fight, and be proven to have restrained Martin after Martin retreated - and it must be proved that Zimmerman knew he was retreating - there’s a chance of an assault charge.
You are continuing to try to claim that Zimmerman didn’t have the right to defend himself. You are utterly and completely wrong in this. If he’s to be found guilty, it will have to be shown that his actions were not to defend himself, but were aggressive actions. There is literally no evidence for this whatsoever.
The prosecution have basically been forced to charge Zimmerman due to political pressure, because of idiots like you who don’t grasp the legal or moral issues surrounding self defence, and the difference between following someone and talking to them, and repeatedly punching someone and bashing their head against the floor.
That you continue to refer to Zimmerman’s injuries as minor, continue to misrepresent the law and the evidence in this case, and repeatedly twist the words of people who’ve patiently tried to explain these facts to you, reflects poorly on both your character and intellect. It’s probably some consolation to you that so many people agree with you, but it scares me, and probably most intelligent people watching this case.
Can we use GZ’s words to that effect?
Do those count?
I am not sure that there’s a chargeable offense there w/o regard to what GZ understanding of TM’s actions post-shot was.
But I am pretty sure that GZ said he realized that TM wasn’t fighting anymore.
I am not sold on this line of conspiracy theory.
But I know that a number of people on teh int4rw3bz are sold on it.
Too bad when they poll people about these things they don’t sort them out by their intelligence. Otherwise you could find some evidence to support your bias here.
I assumed [I know I know about what happens when you assume] TM had stopped beating GZ once TM was using both of his hands to cover GZ’s airholes? Did I get the timeline mixed up here? Or was TM continuing the beating with his brow or some other body part?
Showing that it’s not believable is a step in that direction, imho.
So after the shot was GZ still in the same state of fear that he was before the shot, or not?
Cause if GZ wasn’t still in that same sort of fear, it seems hard to justify being able to shoot TM again as you said he could have.
Either GZ was in the same sort of fear and WAS justified in shooting TM again as you have said.
Or GZ was not in the same state of fear as you have said and was NOT justified in shooting TM again.
I am not sure which of these two states you’re advocating for. The two seem mutually exclusive to me.
Well obviously the screaming would have been interrupted when Zimmerman’s mouth was covered but since we have a record of some of the screaming that would not be a long event.
But you’re responding to my answer to a question about why Zimmerman would have stopped screaming. Do you have any evidence that Martin continued beating him after he was shot?
When he shot Martin he should have grouped a series of shots to ensure death as a matter of training. His practice at the range needs upgrading.
Assuming that Zimmerman’s account is correct then Martin’s words following the shot were an indication of surrender or injury. His restraint was either poor training at the firing range or extremely good reaction time. If I had to guess I’d say poor training.
The special prosecutor bypassed the Grand Jury system. So either people on a grand jury are too stupid to indict based on the information available or the special prosecutor knew they weren’t.
It seems to me that if the screaming stopped in response to TM stopping the beating, it would have stopped BEFORE the shot since TM stopped beating GZ [with his hands anyway] before the shot.
As such I don’t think thatthe theory that the screaming stopped when the beating stopped to be supported by the evidence at hand.
No. Is there some reason that I would?
I don’t think I have made the case that any such event took place.
Do you have any evidence that the screaming stopped when TM stopped beating GZ?
Or something outside of the false dichotomy you have presented.
there is nothing unbelievable in his account of what happened. This thread has been a serious of grassy knoll imaginary scenarios ranging from not enough blood to the body wasn’t positioned correctly to all manner of speculation of what Zimmerman did with no evidence to back up the imaginary account.
All of this ignores the evidence that Martin beat Zimmerman for a sustained period of time with no signs of letting up and with no indication that anybody was going to help Zimmerman.
Martin beat Zimmerman, not the other way around. This is about Martin’s actions not Zimmerman’s. There was no logical reason for Martin to be where he was except to confront Zimmerman. The flip side of this is that Zimmerman was still on the sidewalk waiting for police to arrive.
I’m not suggesting any sort of conspiracy. I’m suggesting that someone who requires winning a popular vote to retain their job will act in such a way as to please to populace, and the most vocal element of the population has been screaming for Zimmerman’s blood. I believe the prosecutor will feel the need to press charges regardless of the likelihood of winning the case, and when the State loses they will attempt to blame it on something else - possibly the SYG law, even though that’s been shown to be irrelevant in this case.
I don’t believe that there’s any conspiracy against Zimmerman, I believe that his mistreatment is a natural result of the stupid system of electing the judicial branch, combined with a stupid and/or ignorant population.
We can infer from O’Mara’s remarks that he is conceding the argument that Zimmerman was the aggressor. That is a logical inference to draw from his statement that the “facts” don’t support SYG, because provocation is the only legally relevant fact.
So what this means is that even O’Mara believes the state will have no problem proving Zimmerman started the fight. He would rather concede then get up there and peddle embarrassing lies about street signs in front of the jury.
Proving that Zimmerman continued to fight Martin after the kid retreated is absurdly easy. In the reenactment, this is how he describes what happened after the kid was shot.
His own words show he knew the kid was retreating and not a threat. There is nothing ambiguous here.
You don't commit a crime by detaining a brutal punk who just beat on you. If that were the case, any number of innocent people would be jailed for stopping a criminal who had just attacked them. The prison's are full enough the way it is. It's obvious Zimmerman didn't know if he had hit Martin.
No we can’t. We can infer that, as Zimmerman couldn’t retreat, SYG is irrelevant, as is the question of who started it.
No it doesn’t. Not in the slightest. It means that, in the actual circumstances here, it doesn’t matter who started the fight.
However, as there is still going to be a pre-trial hearing, O’Mara clearly believes he can prove to the standard of preponderance of evidence that Zimmerman is entitled to immunity, which would mean he was not in the process of committing a (separate) crime when he shot Martin
Proving that he was not in reasonable fear of continuing attack will not be. As nothing he did after the shot was fired contributed to Martin’s death, it is irrelevant to the murder trial. It may be relevant to a theoretical assault charge, if he’s not granted immunity, and if they can prove he was no longer in reasonable fear.
How about you respond to some of these points, rather than repeating fantasies and irrelevancies?
I thought you didn’t believe any of his story? Interesting that you do now that it suits your fantasies. Anyway, if we do accept it, what he claims to have done is not illegal - he was restraining someone he just witnessed committing a serious crime - namely beating the crap out of him.
Either you believe him, in which case his actions were fine, or you disbelieve him, so you can’t speak to his state of mind. Which is it?
Correct. Prior to passing the SYG laws, when “regular” self defense was the law in Florida, a successful plea of self-defense did not confer civil immunity. The current SYG law does.
You said:
And I asked, “What about civil immunity?”
It seems to me the Defenders want to have it both ways.
They want the fight to be a life-and-death battle, where Zimmerman had only two choices: kill or be killed.
But then they want it to be a regular schoolyard fight, in which Zimmerman is fully justified in tackling the aggressor to the ground once there’s a pause in the battle.
Let’s say Zimmerman hadn’t actually shot Martin and he had wrestled the kid down to the ground after firing the weapon.
If he had shot Martin at that point, would he have been justified?
The answer is no. Overtaking the kid would have put him in a position of being able to retreat. If Trayvon had stopped beating him, that means his response should have been to flee. Not “let’s now apprehend the suspect”.
If a guy attacks me, I’m going to try to defend myself. If he gets distracted while in the process of killing me, I’m going to use that opportunity to give him a big shove and then escape (likely screaming my fool head off). I’m not going to push him off and then climb the motherfucker. That only makes sense if I want Beatdown Part II. Or if I think I have an advantage that he lacks. Like a loaded gun.
Zimmerman thought Martin was still alive when he shot him. He still thought he was armed and dangerous, according to his own words. But his actions do not demonstrate this belief at all. If someone or something is a danger, you run away from them. You don’t run to them. So either Zimmerman is a liar or Zimmerman is a liar. Pick one.
I’m happy O’Mara has allowed this angle to come into play. It’s interesting to see the other side try to rationalize away the obvious conclusions.
This is not an accurate statement of the law in Florida.
Although I believe Zimmerman is a liar.
No, and if he did anything after firing the shot that contributed to Martin’s death, he may well be liable for it. There’s no evidence that he did, so that particular hypothetical is irrelevant.
Assuming you’ve actually read this thread, you’ll be aware that he had no duty to retreat, and the right to restrain someone he’s witnessed committing a crime. It may have been more sensible* to flee, for his own safety, but he had no duty to do so.
Or if you have an advantage like being on top of him this time.
Not to mention the fact that expecting someone who’s been repeatedly beaten round the head to be thinking clearly is ridiculous. If Zimmerman had done anything illegal after shooting Martin, that would probably exonerate him.
If something is a danger to you, you attempt to minimise that danger. If said danger is a man you believe to be armed, who has just savagely beaten you, and you’ve just fired a shot at, retreating is likely to be the most dangerous course of action. Preventing them getting to their weapon is the safest.
That Zimmerman was wrong about Martin having a weapon is almost certainly irrelevant here, unless there’s convincing evidence that he should have know that.
The obvious conclusion is that Zimmerman was trying to protect himself, and restrain a criminal. Two things that are not only permitted, but laudable.
*Although, as I’ve explained later in the post, Zimmerman would have been justified in thinking it wasn’t.
You never answered when I asked how are you defining “regular self defense”.
In Florida, “regular self defense” falls under SYG. So if O’Mara is arguing that Zimmerman couldn’t retreat and that’s why he shot Martin–which is how the lawyer is defining "regular self defense–he could still get immunity because that still qualifies under the SYG statutes as eligible for immunity.
monstro, that is exactly right. Gotta love how quickly the argument goes from “the only way Zimmerman could have retreated is if he had burrowed in the ground with his asshole! sob!” to “he was perfectly in his rights to jump on him after he’d just had his ass beaten!”
If O’Mara tries this as a case of Zimmerman potentially being the aggressor, then the threshold for reasonable fear increases. Can he show that Zimmerman was so incapacitated by fear in the face of so much violence that a reasonable person would have acted the same way? No he can’t. The idiot hopped on top of Martin instead of high tailed it to safety. And not only that, he immediately holstered his weapon in favor of restraining the kid’s hands. If you really were quaking in your boots, thinking the guy who almost killed you still had fight left in him, why would you put your gun away?
I vacillate between feeling sorry for O’Mara and being annoyed by him. Right now, I feel sorry for him. That press conference was a cry for help, seriously.
Do you even understand what a defence lawyer does? He doesn’t “try” any cases. He certainly won’t claim Zimmerman was the aggressor - that would be a ridiculous thing to do, whether it’s true or not. If the prosecution paints Zimmerman as the aggressor, he can either refute that or show it’s irrelevant. As there’s hard evidence for the latter, and only weak evidence to refute it, it may be better tactically to attempt to show it’s irrelevant.
He is not attempting to prove Zimmerman’s innocence, and all your analysis of his tactics is based on your faulty assumption that he is. Zimmerman is presumed innocent, and O’Mara’s job is to show that it cannot be proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
Proving his innocence would accomplish that, but it is in no way necessary, and as a tactic flawed, as he would be much better off responding to specific flaws in the prosecution’s case.