Also, the argument was that firing a warning shot, not a shot to injure or kill, showed that she was not in fear of imminent injury or death.
I didn’t ask him to tell me the criminal standard for proof.
I asked him to tell me what his standard is, a question prompted by the persistent argument over what lies have been proved or not. In an effort to understand his reason for his insistence, I stopped arguing it and sought to better understand his understanding.
Which I am still doing and which you are not really contributing to, but thanks for the effort.
Ok, I’ll help. It has not been proved that Zimmerman lied.
Your assertion that Zimmerman vowed not to let the “fucking punk get away” is false.
Your earlier assertion that someone alleged that Martin was breaking into a window is also false.
Your assertion that anyone believes there is legal significance to how long Martin took to walk home is also false.
Regards,
Shodan
is this true??? that manny peeples walk fast and some peeples walk slow and even like yoursefl walk in the rain? And like it. This IS a NEWSFLASH!!! Hoo would have though so that people think it is a pitifiul attempt to be suspicious. To them I altso say awwww etc etc. Becuze NEWSFLASH raining on people is also somtiems a suspicious offensive and disingenouous activity!!1!!!111!!
In your house.
[/QUOTE]
No, you are incorrect. It is not necessary to wait until after one is seriously injured to exercise one’s right to self-defense even outside your home.
No.
There’s no evidence of it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m on board with that. I’ve only used the injuries as evidence that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting, with Zimmerman clearly losing, and, at the moment he fired, underneath Martin, and that such a fight is a situation in which a reasonable person would fear death or great bodily harm.
If it could be proven that Zimmerman started the fight, then he’d have to meet much more stringent criteria before he could use deadly for in self-defense. From Florida statute 776.041:
So, if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then questions of whether he could have fought back using non-deadly force, or could have wriggled free of Martin, suddenly become very important.
It can’t be proven to my satisfaction, or, in my view, to a reasonable person’s satisfaction, that Zimmerman did start the fight. Thus, he needs only a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, and in the situation he was in, such fear was entirely reasonable.
A broken nose and multiple head strikes into cement are not trivial.
No, see, they ARE trivial.
The rule you have to apply is if Zimmerman does anything (follow, approach, talk to) Martin, it’s proof that Zimmerman is evil and justifies any action Martin takes.
If, on the other hand, Martin does anything to Zimmerman (breaks his nose, hits his head to the concrete several times, sits on top of him), it’s prove that Zimmerman is evil and justifies any action Martin takes.
See how tidy the logic is?
:rolleyes:
Yeah, isn’t that handy? Zimmerman can tote his gun around and go chasing after people he deems suspicious, and if he ends up having to shoot someone, well, golly, shit happens, huh?
On the other hand, that dastardly blackguard Trayvon Martin, obviously up to no good by virtue of the fact that he didn’t walk home from the store fast enough to please some of our intrepid investigators here, means he probably deserved to die, and Zimmerman really didn’t have a choice in the matter.
Tidy logic is fun, isn’t it?
But, see, nobody’s claiming that Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin, but a few people in this thread are dismissing a broken nose and some head wounds (possibly minor ones) as “trivial booboos” or no injuries.
And there are plenty of people attributing malevolent motives to Martin for doing nothing more than walking home – our hero the shooter included.
Using this case as an example, you said he lied about his reason for exiting the truck. He clearly intended to keep an eye on Martin. He clearly was trying to establish his location. Yet you determined he was lying when he said he was looking for a street sign. First, they are not mutually exclusive. Second, they are both backed up by the phone call itself. In order for you to claim he lied about looking for a street sign you would need evidence this didn’t happen. That could be in the form of a video, an eye witness or a phone log showing the truck was on a different street altogether. You could also use an email sent by him stating he did not forget the name of the street and it was all a cleverly crafted diabolical plot.
No.
Remember “reasonable” doubt and what the “reasonable” fear of great bodily harm is? “Reasonable” is a very important concept in evidence.
It is not reasonable to believe that a man who lives in a neighborhood with three streets AND regularly drives around those streets on self-appointed patrol had any confusion whatsoever about what street he was on. Applying reasonable standards of likelihood, common sense, and human functioning to people’s claims is exactly what the jury is supposed to be doing. It’s not only allowable, but incumbent, upon that jury to conclude that Zimmerman being honest about his reason for exiting the car is, by any reasonable standard, a lie.
Under your principle, if Zimmerman claimed that Martin sprouted wings and fangs and started breathing fire at him, we would have to find “evidence that this didn’t happen” to disbelieve him. We could not conclude that Zimmerman is telling a false story because it’s not reasonable to think that a person is capable of turning into a dragon, and instead would need to prove that Martin is not a dragon. It’s absurd and it’s not what the law is.
Well…
It’s a permissible inference. Jeantel testified she heard Martin say, “Get off.” It’s a reasonable inference that Martin was speaking to Zimmerman, and a reasonable inference that Zimmerman was “on” Martin in some physical way to prompt such a statement.
So, when Zimmerman was unable to tell the NEN dispatcher what address he was parked at, that was a…?
…lie?
To what end? Are you proposing that Zimmerman was setting up a cover story several minutes before the confrontation and shooting occured?
And undermining the cover story by telling the dispatcher he was following Martin?
It’s also reasonable inference to say it was Zimmerman because it was heard faintly. This backed up by the evidence of who was clearly assaulted and who wasn’t. Now it’s possible that Martin was assaulted but all the other evidence shows Zimmerman stayed in the upper part of the T and Martin moved from his house to this area which suggests Zimmerman avoided conflict and Martin sought it out.
I’m sorry but this is factually incorrect. I do not know the names of the streets around me and I’ve lived in the same house for 20 years. I would recognize them as being the streets around me. It doesn’t mean I can recall which is which. I simply have no reason to know them. All my friends live elsewhere. Hell I routinely forget certain words even though I know them. I have a horrible time describing parts of houses. I often mix up terms like “soffit” and “fascia” and I’m doing good if I can just remember those terms to begin with. I work on stuff like that all the time. If poor verbal skills was a crime the Vice President would be doing a life sentence.
You’ve put this forth as if they are the only streets in the whole world to Zimmerman. He likely knows the names of the major connector streets over those near him. It’s pretty clear in the phone call that he couldn’t recall the name of the street at the time of the call and to suggest otherwise means you believe he was concocting a huge lie in advance.