Which is why I accept that the state didn’t prove their side and the verdict is legally correct, however I don’t agree with it. There’s a reason why OJ was legally off the hook but everyone still thinks he’s guilty
It could, but I don’t believe it
The old “I have a black friend” defense never works, nor will it here
Suspicious because he’s black
TM’s reaction was reasonable for someone who was stalked in the night. If someone was stalking me, I’m either going to run or attack him. There’s no reason for GZ to walk towards TM at all, he was asked to stay in the car and he knew the police were coming.
Interestingly enough, Martin did both. First he ran away, then, when he had reached a place of safety, doubled back and attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman had stopped following him (at the NEN operator’s request). So Martin’s reaction was not a reasonable one. It was an illegal attack on someone who was not posing any threat.
Ah, I see. I was confused because I thought I’d asked, “Isn’t starting a fight a forcible felony?” and was rebuffed. I’d be curious what they had in mind that was somewhere in between forcible felony and “provoking the use of force against onself.”
The only evidence you have that Martin “Reached a place of safety” is a witness who you described on the previous page as “not credible.” Do I understand that right?
None were found. No bruising had formed during the minute he had left alive. We’ll never know because I am a better medical examiner than the one that autopsied Trayvon. I will admit it is likely that any physical force used by GZ prior to the punch would likely have been a push or grab of TM to restrain him. Again, I have no proof of that. I’m not assessing negligence or conspiracy against the ME… Most MEs don’t have billion dollar labs like on TV, but my man is not very good at his job.
I will never argue that Trayvon didn’t punch Zimmerman. The evidence is clear. I’m not one that sees any evidence that Zimmerman drew his weapon at any point prior to using it. There is simply zero evidence to even begin arguing that. I think George somehow got the weapon and fired at close range without hesitation. Once you’ve got a gun you had better use it or you risk losing it. Without any other concrete (pardon the pun) evidence GZ is not guilty.
Reagardless of all that it should be made clear that the reason TM punched and subdued GZ will never be known beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have to actually prove the forcible felony in order to remove the self-defense. Which means at least charging the defendant with the forcible felony.
“starting a fight” can mean a lot of different things, some of which morally and/or legally waive one’s right to self-defense and some of which do not. That may sound nit-picky to you, but it’s an important distinction since self-defense is a critical issue in this case.
In the same way, the words “stalking” and “profiling” confuse the issues.
You said that there wasn’t any evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Bricker pointed out that Rachel’s testimony is evidence, to which you replied, “Well, there’s no credible evidence then.”
Well, starting a fight by grabbing someone’s arm might be only misdemeanor battery. But even if it were a felony, the state can’t use that as a predicate unless they charge it. So that’s where the disconnect was, I think. To say that the accused committed a forcible felony that defeated his right to deadly force, the state has to actually charge that forcible felony and the jury has to believe it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
A ‘fight’ might constitute a forcible felony or only a misdemeanor.
In Flordia, for a charge of battery to elevate from misdemeanor to felony aggravated battery requires injuries that are “great [harm] as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm and as such, does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery.” See Chesnoff v. State
Agreed, a push or grab wouldn’t leave much sign in any case. Then again, that raises the question of whether a push or grab can reasonably be responded to with a sustained pinning and beating.
[QUOTE=Mr-Pookie]
I will never argue that Trayvon didn’t punch Zimmerman. The evidence is clear. I’m not one that sees any evidence that Zimmerman drew his weapon at any point prior to using it. There is simply zero evidence to even begin arguing that. I think George somehow got the weapon and fired at close range without hesitation. Once you’ve got a gun you had better use it or you risk losing it. Without any other concrete (pardon the pun) evidence GZ is not guilty.
Reagardless of all that it should be made clear that the reason TM punched and subdued GZ will never be known beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE]
Not quite, the important question is whether it disqualifies the pusher/grabber from defending himself against the sustained pinning and beating with lethal force. It’s entirely possible both were acting in legitimate self defence.
there are a number of holes in gzs story
but your mind is sealed shut by the need to believe gz at any cost and without any due consideration to the story unfolding in a way that contradicts what gz says happened. Given the fact gz was the one stalking tm that night even when told to not do so (I recall another time gz did this to a police officer who had shown him his badge and gz told him he didnt care who he was and didnt comply with his order)…I believe that gz was probably the one who attacked tm. If one considers it is possible or probable that gz was the aggressor, its possible to explain the whole grass stain thing in more than one way. You just do not have the mindset to even consider for a moment that gz was lying. Its possible that in the struggle, tm ended up on top at one point, as well as gz ending up on top ( youve never seen a fight where at different points both parties end up on top at one point along the way?), its also possible gz put the grass stains there to corroborate his fake story.
I have to leave in a minute but will check back later when i can, but here are just a couple other bullet points that dont match up with gzs story. Gz told detectives that he spread out tms arms to his side, but the police report describing tms body states the boy’s arms were underneath his body. Another one, gz claimed he was getting his head banged on the concrete and got a bloody nose but there was no blood on ground (except for tms blood) and no blood on the front of gzs shirt or jacket. Also, on the 911 call he tells the operator tm looks to be a teenager and refers to him also as a kid, but then in court he told tms parents he tnought tm was the same age as gz, late twenties. An overlay of what he told 911 , with all his other stories doesnt match
Sure, that’s important too. I was just referring to Martin’s response to the alleged push or grab, though. Those who argue that Martin did nothing wrong that night, while also believing that he pinned and beat Zimmerman as a response to some sort of restraint attempt, as many do, must internally resolve whether that response is morally warranted and still means Martin did nothing wrong. I vote “no”.
Dee Dee’s testimony, in her deposition, does not establish Zimmerman as the aggressor, at least as far as the actual facts she reported go. She reports the two as saying exactly two things -
[ul][li]Martin coming back by “right by his father’s house” and saying to Zimmerman “why are you following me?” followed by[/li][li]Zimmerman asking “what are you doing around here”, followed by [/li][li]A bump, and the sounds of “grass”.[/ul]None of this constitutes credible evidence of Zimmerman aggression. It is in accordance with the other evidence, however - the grass stains on Zimmerman showed a struggle on grass, Martin hit Zimmerman and/or tackled him, which fits with her description of a bump, it fits fairly closely with Zimmerman’s narrative, so to that extent they back each other up, Martin’s testimony and Zimmerman’s agree that they had lost each other, the timeline of Martin’s back and forth fits, etc. Accordingly, we accept those parts of her story.[/li]
Her allegation that it was Martin saying “get off, get off” don’t fit with the evidence of the grass stains, the eyewitness accounts, or Zimmerman’s narrative. So that part is not credible. Just as with Zimmerman, you accept the parts backed up by evidence, and not the others.