So now I can clearly say that, as a matter of law, if someone follows you for ten minutes and then approaches you, you are not entitled to defend yourself with physical force. They would have to do or say something to you that communicated a threat of immediate harm. Merely approaching you after following you for ten minutes does not entitle you, under the law, to fight them.
This is not a matter of opinion. It’s black-letter law. It would be legally insufficient to establish a self-defense argument.
Gotta say, without some trump card from the prosecution, I really don’t see much chance of a criminal conviction. Now a civil trial on the other hand might be a prime venue for the arguments you are making.
I’m seeing shades of the OJ trials all over again.
You could say both ‘should have,’ however Martin had the choice to be the better man and to walk away (unless you have evidence he was detained or restrained).
In most cases where someone is the initiator, the recipient has the upper hand of choice - he hasn’t committed or played his hand yet.
Let’s assume Zimmerman went after Martin in a dead sprint. Shouldn’t Martin have run away just to be on the safe side?
It doesn’t matter if Martin felt justified in standing his ground or defending himself - he doesn’t know who or what Zimmerman is capable of. In that case, defending himself would have been getting away as soon as possible.
Even if true, Martin did not know this. See above - he should have erred on the side of caution.
Uh ok?
Sure why not? The question is did he use it offensively or defensively?
So you are admitting that Martin immediately acted hostile?
Most people show respect to others - strangers especially - not merely as a way to be polite, but also because they don’t know whom they are dealing with.
If Martin immediately disrespected Zimmerman for no damning reason, than surely that’s a problem of Martin’s, not Zimmerman’s.
Humans can be suspicious but they by and large act on rationale rather than impulse.
Who’s bragging about anything? All I did was answer hbn’s question *“what do you think of handshakes?” *with an anecdote that illustrated me in favour of them. I recalled my unregulated street encounter as matter of factly as I could and it was the first one I’ve given any detail about in my many posts in this thread.
Oh, and btw, I just know how to kick ass against people who think they are better at fighting than they are. I certainly don’t think I’d be much of a match for someone who trains hard and does it for fun and/or a payday.
Invading their personal space and grabbing their clothing is a no-no, though, whether your name is George Zimmerman, or not. The evidence might not be there in clear Find The Guilty for Dummies fashion, but the smart money is on Z being a grabber and not TM being a sucker-puncher.
Whether you think the fight described is straight out of a Guy Ritchie movie or not, it happened, and pretty much exactly as stated. If you think that sounds gangsta-thuglife and entertaining, I could mention incidents from my drug-dealing, club-going days and my footy hooly days in the late 70’s that would make your toe-nails curl.
I’ve been called a lot of things in my time, but I’ve never been called a pathetic little gobshite by anyone who actually knew me. What you seem to be implying is there is a certain way to describe a fight that only a person who can fight can do. Maybe, that renowned fighting expert shodan will oblige and show us how it is done properly? Why don’t you ask him?
Why are you and others so keen to suggest I am a liar in this thread?
Hey, you could put someone 40lb heavier on me and I will guarantee leaving some kind of mark on them that lets them know they’ve been in a fight. I might take some damage, but he’ll be getting poked in the eyes, his ears ripped at, his fingers bit, and anything else I can cook up in my desperate state. If I’m still conscious, the fight’s not over.
Never? Is that what’s going to happen? I thought it would all be sorted out in this thread. You live and learn.
On the scale of Problem Teenagers, I imagine TM was somewhere in the bottom distinctly unremarkable percentile. On the Neighbourhood Watch Guy About To Fuck Up scale, I’d bet Z was up in the top 10.
I’ve no doubt Z didn’t think grabbing a Goon was a crime. His plan was to have a totally subservient Trayvon when the cops came, and be able to say “Look guys, I’m doing your job for you,” like the ungrateful twat he is. If TM hadn’t resisted and Z was holding TM’s sleeve when the cops turned up, does anyone really think Z would have been told off, or that Trayvon would have been believed if he’d complained?
Again, I don’t think he was significantly troubled. If he was as violent as Z suggests, this wouldn’t have been the first time he’d exploded and someone, somewhere would know of his reputation for taking no shit. You want to know if Trayvon was a hothead? Go and ask his peers in school and on the streets. You can’t hide whether you are a lover or a fighter among the peole you interact with daily.
He wasn’t in his own neighbourhood. He’d been there a week and we don’t know if he’d been there before, so why assume he treated it like it was his turf? People that age are very aware of not acting like you own the streets in hoods where you aren’t from.
Oh yes, he was gunning for George Zimmerman from the moment he left Brandy Green’s. He’d probably seen Z swaggering around with his dog and thought, next time I see him on his own, I’m having him, and after loading up on skittles and a cold drink to celebrate his victory with, he spotted Z innocently heading to the shops and gave him the evil eye. We all know what happened after that.
I think it shows that TM was acting defensively and Z’s hands were too busy grabbing to fight back, because he’d never expected to be fighting, he was expecting full compliance with his demands.
No, I haven’t. I’ve been “called out” for posting things that are correct, that those who respond either don’t think should be correct, or just wish weren’t correct.
They will only be talked about by the jury if they are admissible evidence in court. The jury, of necessity, will be people who haven’t followed this case, and don’t know about all the extraneous crap you keep bringing up.
The evidence is what’s included in the discovery. Are these interviews included in that? If not, they can’t be used as evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt.
Not that they are evidence of his guilt anyway, but that’s not reelevant.
Zimmerman’s credibility is absolutely an issue. We don’t disagree on that. What we disagree on is how it should be determined. The credibility of any statement of his should be judged on whether it is consistent with the evidence. If he’s lying about everything, it will not be consistent. If he’s lying about some things but not others, we believe the ones that appear true, and discount the others.
If they can prove in court, with the evidence available, the jury may choose to disregard his evidence. In fact, they may choose to do that anyway. What they may not do is assume that any facts not in evidence are true based solely on the fact that he’s lying - that is, they may not convict based on the fact that he’s lying.
If they do, it will be overturned on appeal.
We are discussing the murder 2 charge. A theoretical manslaughter charge is not something I’ve looked at, and I’ll not do so unless and until it becomes actual.
The jury can’t send anybody away. This is more proof you don’t understand the legal system. The jury decides the question of guilt and, with the exception of some capital crimes, has no input on sentencing.
Yes. This hasn’t happened yet. I’m inclined to doubt there’d be much benefit for Zimmerman in pleading guilty to a lesser charge, but I’m willing to be corrected.
If you continue to base your opinions and speculation on nonsense you’ve rectally extracted, I’ll continue to call you out on it. Thanks for acknowledging that my analysis is superior, though.
Are you? You never actually answered that. Short answer, Zimmerman is not guilty of murder, judged by Florida law and the evidence available. No amount of nonsense from you can change that. I doubt any of my superior analysis will change your mind, but just possibly someone reading this thread will learn from it.
Then, they can accept why Zimmerman will be found not guilty, and, if they feel he is morally culpable, work to change Florida law so someone in his position in the future won’t be. Personally, I like the law, and fully favour a strong right to self defence. Thinking otherwise puts you on the side of bullies and arseholes (something I will discuss, quite coincidentally, in my next post, in response to dimmy’s nonsense).
“Invading their personal space” is not illegal, unless accompanied by a clear threat. You do not have the right to punch someone for doing so.
“Grabbing their clothing” is (probably) battery, and if it contains with it a threat of further attacks, one may use proportionate force in defence. However, unless there is such a threat, one may not use force. It is never legal to use force as revenge.
Not only do we have no evidence that Zimmerman did either of those things, even if he did they would not be sufficient to put Martin in a position where he was entitled to use any level of force.
That you think thuggish behaviour and escalating revenge attacks are acceptable says a lot about you.
Really. I suspect I’ve seen much the same things you have. That you see fit to boast about such shenanigans also says a lot about you, none of it complimentary.
No, you’re an admitted drug dealing football hooligan. The sort of people who, in my experience, act in groups to bully others, and look for weaknesses to take advantage of, with no respect for law, morality, or other people in general. now, I guess it’s possible you’re an exception to this, that you deal drugs solely as a protest against laws you feel are unjust, and that your hooliganism consisted solely of fights against other consenting adults, and not, for example, running through towns and cities out of your face on cheap speed and cider, smashing everything you could find - especially shops belonging to people from ethnic minorities.
I take it back, you’re not from a Guy Ritchie film, and you’re right about him glamourising brutality. You’re from a Shane Meadows film.
If you’re not a liar, you’re a despicable human being who feeds off the weaknesses of others, bullying them, attacking them, and destroying their property and person.
I actually hope you’re a liar.
Oh yes. That would be the thread where you “defend” Trayvon Martin by comparing his actions to those a drug dealing football hooligan thug would take, right? You’re an embarrassment to your side, and if you actually believe Zimmerman is guilty, and not just believe that he’s a pussy who would have - and should have - lost in a fair fight (which is the closest I can come to understanding your actual view), you should really stop posting now, before you make everyone who agrees with you look bad by comparison.
I’m offering reasonable speculation for what could have happened, not providing the state with evidence they can use in their prosecution. That’s not my job, like it isn’t yours to do the same for Z.
I don’t believe any such thing. I believe in avoiding trouble unless it comes looking for me. I am not the person now I was back then.
I’d bet you haven’t, except in all these movies you are fond of watching.
Right on cue.
Nope, nor any of the things you accuse me of. Way to double down on the discrediting though.
No, you just made that up.
Sorry, but you’re the embarrassment, casting judgement based on a few words on a messageboard and trying to use it to bolster an argument defending an inadequate man who just had to kill a 17yr old.
I’ll ignore the bit where you admitted lying about being a drug dealing football hooligan thug, and just address this.
This sums up your view of Zimmerman. You consider him “inadequate” because he was bested in a fight. That sums up your worldview. Yes, I will absolutely defend someone who was unable to win a fight he didn’t start, and had to kill to protect himself. That you have a problem with that further shows you are on the side of bullies and thugs.
In your last few posts, you have effectively admitted that it all happened the way we’ve been saying all along, and that your whole objection is that the law doesn’t allow thuggish, bullying behaviour. Pathetic.
No, don’t ignore it. Point to it specifically and I can understand how good your reading comprehension is.
I consider him inadequate for lots of reasons. His biggest that night was his inability to determine the type of person who should be discouraged from lurking in the neighbourhood, from someone who was just strolling home from the shop and despite having plenty of opportunity to avoid that person, he ended up killing him.
You’re flailing all over the place now. If this was a street fight, you’d be on your ass.
It’s the whole beginning of the post, where you deny you’ve done any of the things that football hooligans and drug dealers do.
He accurately identified a non-resident in a private community, acting in a suspicious manner, and that suspicion was more than justified when he was attacked without provocation.
Yes, he should have avoided Martin for his own safety, but he’s in no way obliged to.
There’s nothing wrong with killing someone in self defence, if it’s necessary. The only person who was out of order was Martin, with his continued attack on Zimmerman.
I though you were English? Have you forgotten how to spell “arse”? Or have I just caught you out in another lie?
You appear to be confusing flailing with targetted, successful jabs here. Along with everything else you’re confused about.
No, I deny doing any of the things you associate with my claims. I don’t think selling a few E’s in clubs and raves is really much of a detriment to society, but I’ll admit that my fighting with like-minded people in public places was, and it’s not a time of my life I’m proud about, but no innocents were involved in the actual fighting.
No, he wrongly profiled an innocent teen who was just taking a known shortcut, seemingly because a couple of weeks before he’d seen a suspicious black guy with a cig looking at the open window this friend of Z’s always left open in a crime-ridden area, and jumped to some eventually fatal conclusions.
I’d think he was obliged not to unnecessarily alarm visitors to the residences, though.
I agree in principle and just feel it was unnecessary here.
They pinch our words, I’ll pinch theirs sometimes.
Your jabs are landing short and you’re not planting your feet when you throw your power shots. After seeing what you’ve got, I don’t care if you want to fight on the outside or get up close and personal.
No, I haven’t. That’s just what you are reading into my posts.
Does your typical internet keyboard warrior usually leave it so long before introducing one of their anecdotes to back up an argument? Not having studied the phenomenon much, I wouldn’t profess to know. Maybe you can enlighten the readership and point out my traits clearly for all to see?