I will turn around the defense’s favorite phrase and say prove Trayvon wasn’t defending himself with that punch and wrestling. And, for the sake of the argument, you aren’t allowed to use any of GZ’s accounts, just as others never got to use Trayvon’s account over the last 17 months.
GZ was rightfully found not guilty. I believe that is largely based on an overwhelming lack of evidence. That same lack of evidence can’t prove Zimmerman’s claims that Trayvon attacked for no apparent reason other than “male ego”. And so, it shouldn’t be casually stated as fact that Trayvon attacked without cause. You can say “I believe that is what happened” and I’ll never have issue with it.
Can you quote a reliable source which has Zimmerman characterizing Martin as a “drugged-out armed thug, casing the neighborhood”?
I disagree. For one thing, having your head slammed into concrete can be life threatening. For another thing, he had no way of knowing if he was about to get his head slammed another 10 times.
How do you know that Martin would have stopped beating Zimmerman before Zimmerman suffered a fatal injury?
It’s hard to say if that’s nitpicking since the thrust of Team Trayvon’s argument on this point is not very clear. The argument seems to be as follows:
(1) Zimmerman did something inappropriate.
(2) If he had not done it, then the confrontation would not have happened and Martin would not have been shot and killed.
(3) ???
(4) Therefore Zimmerman is criminally responsible for Martin’s death.
Anyway, if somebody exaggerates or makes up facts to put one of the parties in a worse light, it’s not unreasonable to correct them. For example, if I asserted that Martin was high on marijuana at the time, would it be nitpicking to point out that his blood THC levels were actually pretty low?
Lol, that’s hardly nitpicking or being legalistic. That’s a serious problem for people who want to hang Zimmerman.
I doubt it. I don’t know Florida law on this point, but normally a person who is in the process of committing a violent felony has no legal right of self-defense against someone who is privileged to use force against him.
And by the way, since you used this example, it’s not nitpicking to point out that what Zimmerman did in following Martin was not illegal. It’s demonstrating that his situation was clearly different from your hypothetical.
Why not try to prevent the mistake that Martin made? Is it that the Zimmermans of the world are moral actors and the Martins are not?
He was wrong only in the victim-blaming sense that he made a poor decision by following a suspicious person.
It can’t be proven, but we can look at the evidence. Did Martin have any wounds that were inflicted upon him prior to the shooting? No.
Are Zimmerman’s wounds consistent with a fight for the gun? No, his injuries are confined to his face and head, and he had no scratches, scrapes, or bruises on his hands.
So, given that, it doesn’t seem likely that Martin was defending himself from an attack from Zimmerman, or from Zimmerman drawing his gun.
Reasonable conclusions can be drawn. That said, you are correct, it can’t be proven.
Whether Trayvon was defending himself is irrelevant to the legal case. There is nothing in the law that says “if the other party was defending him/herself, your self-defense argument is invalid”.
There are also examples of people who fall and hit their head on something, get up, walk away, and die a few hours later from bleeding inside their brain.
I’m not an expert on physical violence, but I think too many people get their knowledge from Hollywood. In the movies, you can get hit on the head with a monkey wrench and the worst that will happen is you are knocked out for a few hours and wake up with a headache.
In order for her opinion of who said “get off” a little bit the microphone has to either have fallen off Martin or picked up another person’s voice or no words were heard. The only person showing any signs of attack is Zimmerman. and it corresponds to his video re-enactment where he is shown struggling to get Martin off him after being punched in the nose.
So it’s not necessarily correct to say the jury disbelieved DeeDee’s testimony, just her opinion of it since she faintly heard the words and couldn’t see who said them.
If gz pounced on him and mma style tried to overpower tm hell yea it would. And also, I thought, but like you, Im not a lawyer, I thought under the law tm didnt even need to leave a scratch for gz to feel his life was in danger.
Gz was an older much stockier, heavier man who had mma training and a gun and was following and intimidating tm. Tm was the one who feared for his life, not gz.
A person who initially provoked the use of force against himself – what you say is true. It doesn’t matter if he provoked the use of force or not, as along as he exhausted every reasonable means to escape. But a person who is committing a forcible felony does not have that option. If he’s committing a forcible felony he loses any right to use deadly force in return.
If you had evidence that that happened then you’d have a case.
GZ was an out of shape person with medical problems. There’s no evidence Martin had a scratch on him. He was taller and in excellent physical health. The evidence shows Zimmerman had a broken nose and signs Martin was on top of him beating him which was backed up by witnesses.
You can make up scenarios that are possible but you need evidence that backs it up.
I am confused and need my ignorance fought. How did Zimmerman’s defense of self-defense differ from the “stand your ground” law that this case was initially supposed to hinge on?
Your post is a good one, but (again) this specific example is flawed. In Florida, if you break into house and threaten to rape my wife you’ve committed a forcible felony and may not use deadly force to defend yourself.
Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin, unable to retreat, and in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury.
Those claims are “classic” self-defense. In classic self-defense, you can’t use deadly force if you could have retreated. The stand your ground law removes the duty to retreat - it says that if you are where you legally have a right to be, and doing what you legally have a right to do, you cannot be compelled to retreat in order to avoid having to defend yourself. You don’t have to back down, in other words, while under classic self-defense you DID have to back down to avoid killing.
But if you couldn’t retreat – if it’s him or you – all states permit you to use deadly force to defend yourself against the fear of serious injury or death.
If gz pounced on him and mma style tried to overpower tm hell yea it would.
[/QUOTE]
The grass stains and wetness on Zimmerman’s back, the lack of such on Martin’s back, the grass stains and moisture on Martin’s knees, and the lack of such on Zimmerman’s knees, indicate that this did not happen.