George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[cityslick]

I understand what you are saying and I was simply pointing out there needs to be a basis of "self defense". You can't simply claim you felt threatened and that is why you shot someone, there has to be a basis as to why and should be looked into . :twocents:

The basis in this case is GZ was on his back with TM on top (forensics, JG testimony) and TM was moving his arms down (attacking?) on GZ (JG testimony). He was in fear of getting seriously hurt/killed because he was in a vulnerable position.

How is that not self defense?

 

[Isabelle]

She said the same thing in the initial interview,I don"t know how the rumor got started that she didn't. Listen to it.IMO

It's called, selective hearing/selective reasoning. Pick and choose what will work. IMO

 

[sacrablue]

No because you were the aggressor. You attacked your neighbor.

Now we come to this case. We cannot determine who the aggressor was. And that benefits the defense, not the state.

Exactly, hide behind the law and kill people. Sounds like the Wild West to me. IMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That may be so but when you are claiming self defense you have to prove something IMO

Not if the state charges you with murder.. They do.

 

[Isabelle]

The basis in this case is GZ was on his back with TM on top (forensics, JG testimony) and TM was moving his arms down (attacking?) on GZ (JG testimony). He was in fear of getting seriously hurt/killed because he was in a vulnerable position.

How is that not self defense?

There was a female witness that testified she saw someone wearing red on top. Was that testimony thrown out? IMO

 

[FrayedKnot]

When did GZ have time to beat himself up? How can we forget a neighbor was on the scene immediately, and there were others looking out windows and doors. Wouldn't someone have seen GZ acting like a crazy man throwing himself on the sidewalk, punching himself in the face, etc? They can see two people fighting, but not GZ acting like his having seizures?

Well, his injuries were pretty minor. It wouldn't be that hard to bang yourself up a little without being clearly seen. In the dark. MOO

Not saying GZ did that, because honestly he wasn't that badly hurt so his injuries don't really support self-defense anyway. No TM dna on the gun either. MOO

 

[doubt]

Yes but did JM also use facts and evidence even though he was forceful? Because BDLR did not.

wow. are you claiming that BDLR used NO FACTS/EVIDENCE in his closing? really? so much for leaving emotion out and relying solely upon the law!

MOO

 

[marlap]

Again it matters not.

His injuries are not part of the requirements for it to be self defense.

He only has to have fear of great bodily harm or death. IT does not actually have to happen.

THE LAW is what matters.

TM may have been in great fear of bodily harm or death because GZ (a stranger) was following him, questioning him, harassing him.

That GZ was following him, questioning him are facts in evidence in this case.

TM may have thrown the first punch because he was scared.

Self-defense. Same law applies.

IMO, GZ more likely than not showed a glimpse of his gun to try to force TM to wait with him.

There is zero evidence that GZ did NOT threaten TMM...if fact we know he was following and questioning him.

 

[PaintingAnemone]

Or, don't start a fight with a seemingly easy target. He/she may be armed.
Many a has learned that lesson the hard way.
MOO :twocents::drumroll:

I think referring to a dead kid with no police record (or even clear evidence of wrongdoing), a reputation as being a decent person, and no weapon of any sort as a "" is a quite a stretch. I do find it interesting how those who seem to buy GZ's story all tend to fall back on this stereotype that TM was some gang-banging kid when there's no evidence of that. IMO

 

[glamourkitty1922]

What if I attack my neighbor, they end up overpowering me and straddling me so I shoot them? Do I have every right to defend myself?

It all boils down to proof. The state has to PROVE you attacked your neighbor. If there is no proof, you will get the benefit of the doubt because that is the way American justice operates. Innocent until proven guilty.
My opinion because American "justice" is turning into a Kangaroo court here.
:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::banghead::twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Great. So, Trayvon could have responded with deadly force if he saw a gun?
I don't believe he did, respond with deadly force...but good to know.
I believe he was wrestling to keep he gun from being pointed at him.
Can you claim self defense if the person you are chasing and pointing a gun at defends themselves and hurts you? I don't think you can provoke your own injuries and claim self defense. Law experts?

No facts in evidence.

 

[bellaalex]

If I'm recalling correctly from testimony, either the Neighborhood Watch or maybe the HOA, can't remember which, offered him a security vehicle to use and he declined.

IMO

I missed that. Definitely diminishes the cop wannabe, power hungry theories. Although the security vehicle may have helped the situation and identified to TM immediately who GZ was and why he was driving around. The outcome may have been different.

 

[EGirl]

Food for thought... Some may see this, some may not... but food for thought anyway:

In your own neighborhood, for whatever your own reasons, you and your husband or boyfriend see somebody outside who seems suspicious...

How many of your husbands/boyfriends would go outside to investigate, and possibly bring something with them (golf club, bat, etc). Just curious.

Going to investigate someone or something that YOU deem suspicious is not the craziest concept in the world. I've heard noises before and have grabbed a coat hanger to go investigate. Probably smarter to stay locked in my bedroom. But I still went to look because I wanted to know what was up.

Food for thought.

IMO

Are you part of the neighborhood watch in a neighborhood that has experienced a rash of burglaries?

 

[cityslick]

Am I crazy or didn't RJ say Trayvon told her he was "near" his Dad's? "Near" is not the same as "at." Anywhere on the sidewalk could be referred to as "near."

TM told RJ he was behind his dad's.

 

[sacrablue]

I find it very blasé.

MOM has no personality. I thought he would be more dramatic with important points. It is all one big fruit salad right now. IMO

 

[JusticeJunkie]

[/B]]GZ shot TM in self defense but we need to know what caused this to happen and unfortunately in this case, no one, but GZ and TM, knows what actually happened. And IMO GZ is going to stretch the truth and leave things out because after all he shot and killed someone. He had better have a good story to back up his claim. :twocents:

Case closed.


IMO

 

[Jane Jetson]

So I can simply shoot someone and claim self defense just because I feel threatened? Does this mean I can shoot my neighbor across the street because I don't like the way they look at me, I feel threatened over that? I know I'm over playing this but I'm trying to make a point.

In my opinion, and I say this very respectfully, when you "overplay" it, it doesn't apply.

No one in their right mind thinks you should just be able to shoot someone because you THINK they're threatening you. That would be ludicrous.

But when they are, possibly, on their way to killing you, you may then take appropriate measures. That, as Scarlett says, is the law.

 

[Chester_from_THM]

When I jumped in here and started posting mid-trial I thought a few people had mommy issues because I kept seeing "I can't take MOM's voice anymore" or "MOM is doing a terrible job." :floorlaugh:

I just wanted say that I mean no disrespect using MOM for O'Mara. I am using initials for every person I post about, whatever my position is.

 

[defense101]

No, you don't have to prove anything. If you use the "Stand Your Ground" defense, you have to prove something.

This trial requires the state to prove he did NOT shoot in self-defense.

IMHO

No it has to prove that he murdered him with ill will yada yada yada, it is the defense who has to prove self defense IMO

 

[rose222]

Well, his injuries were pretty minor. It wouldn't be that hard to bang yourself up a little without being clearly seen. In the dark. MOO

Not saying GZ did that, because honestly he wasn't that badly hurt so his injuries don't really support self-defense anyway. No TM dna on the gun either. MOO

That's your opinion, not what the law states.

IMO.