GZ Case - Defense Perspective

[Chris_Texas]

'What are you doing here' isn't provoking either IMO

Of course it is! If some strange guy runs up to you in Walmart and demands to know what you are doing there, you are absolutely going to feel surprised, perhaps a bit nervous about the crazy guy, and definately provoked. How much worse would it be if it were some dude chasing you around your apartment complex at night.

 

[LambChop]

But they are not entitled an answer. Just as Mr. Martin did not have to, nor did he, answer Mr. Zimmerman.

No, according to a witness it sound as if TM ran.


As far as I'm aware there's still no evidence pointing in the direction that "Mr. Zimmerman tried to detain Mr. Martin" which is odd because you'd expect some kind of verbiage to indicate that in the PCA if there is evidence of it. Mr. Martin wasn't a resident in the gated community, Mr. Zimmerman was.. who owed who an explanation, if anyone?

TM was a guest in the condo where that back sidewalk led to. GZ did not live in this portion of the development so he had no authority to be there nor to follow someone, whereas TM did.

He has no "common sense" yet he's put together a VERY elaborate story to cover everything that may be asked. He even convinced Mr. Martin to bruise his own knuckles.

LOL. I don't think GZ is a very good story teller. It will be interesting when GZ's statements are released. Funny, they weren't leaked. jmo

 

[Chris_Texas]

I disagree. IMO, "Why are you following me?" is accusatory. Whereas, "Are you following me?" would be a less aggressive way to open a conversation. IMO, this leads me to believe that TM was annoyed, possibly angered, that GZ was keeping an eye on him. Regardless, TM was the first to initiate any verbal exchange and I believe it is quite plausible that he also threw the first punch.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Why ask "Are you following me"? He KNEW the answer already, in fact he had already tried to escape from the man who eventually killed him.

<modsnip> Trayvon was the unarmed innocent kid walking home. He had committed no crime, done nothing wrong. He found himself being chased around by an adult stranger. Eventually that stranger caught him and killed him. Trayvon was the VICTIM.

Zimmerman was the armed adult who took it upon himself, against police advice, to chase around a frightened kid. A kid who, by his own admission, had already attempted to escape him. But he didn't give up and he eventually caught and killed the boy. Zimmerman was the KILLER.

 

[cityslick]

What's not the law?

If, as so many seem to be claiming, Mr Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and "stand his ground" then Trayvon had that right as well. Two critical differences here however. The first is that Trayvon attempted to flee, he tried to avoid the conflict. Zimmerman did not. The second is that some do not believe that Trayvon had ANY rights here at all, including the right to be left alone.

The words 'stand your ground' have an absolute meaning in the english language. They mean, literally, to remain where you are. This, obviously, is something Zimmerman did not do. He advanced. His ground was somewhere a hundred yards behind him. He made the choice to leave it.

As I said, the sad part in all this is that Trayvon was unsuccessful in his efforts at self defense. Unfortunately he didn't have a gun or knife with which to defend himself from the advancing armed menace. He only had his hands, and that wasn't enough.

My question would be this... had Trayvon succeeded in defending himself, had he succeeded in 'standing his ground,' if he somehow pulled off the miracle and killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman and "stand your ground' today be as adamant in their support for Trayvon? The answer appears to be no.

BBM

What evidence is there that TM tried to 'flee' as you say? GZ has every right in the world to ask TM a question 'what are you doing here'. That is not against the law. If someone comes up to you and asks you a question, and you proceed to swing at them because you don't like how they spoke to you, guess what? You are in the wrong. That is the law.

 

[AJ Noiter]

No, according to a witness it sound as if TM ran.

TM was a guest in the condo where that back sidewalk led to. GZ did not live in this portion of the development so he had no authority to be there nor to follow someone, whereas TM did.

LOL. I don't think GZ is a very good story teller. It will be interesting when GZ's statements are released. Funny, they weren't leaked. jmo

If you're speaking of the girlfriend then I beg to differ. Her account was that Mr. Martin asked a question, Mr. Zimmerman ignored the inquiry and followed up with one of his own, Mr. Martin ignored that inquiry and the phone went dead.

Mr. Zimmerman had authority to be within the gates of the community at any and all times, no matter which street he would have been on, or which sidewalk, etc. He had permanent authority to be there as per the list of residents that would have been kept at the clubhouse by the owner of the property or HOA. Mr. Martin would not be on such a list.

 

[beach]

Yes. However, Trayvon was the only person defending themself. He was the one who attempted to flee. George, in muy opinion, negated any claim to self-defense the minute he decided to chase around a frightened kid.

BBM


Just to be clear, re: the bold: That is not a proven fact. That is clearly your opinion, but it is not a proven fact.

 

[Phoenixfla]

What's not the law?

If, as so many seem to be claiming, Mr Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and "stand his ground" then Trayvon had that right as well. Two critical differences here however. The first is that Trayvon attempted to flee, he tried to avoid the conflict. Zimmerman did not. The second is that some do not believe that Trayvon had ANY rights here at all, including the right to be left alone.

The words 'stand your ground' have an absolute meaning in the english language. They mean, literally, to remain where you are. This, obviously, is something Zimmerman did not do. He advanced. His ground was somewhere a hundred yards behind him. He made the choice to leave it.

As I said, the sad part in all this is that Trayvon was unsuccessful in his efforts at self defense. Unfortunately he didn't have a gun or knife with which to defend himself from the advancing armed menace. He only had his hands, and that wasn't enough.

My question would be this... had Trayvon succeeded in defending himself, had he succeeded in 'standing his ground,' if he somehow pulled off the miracle and killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman and "stand your ground' today be as adamant in their support for Trayvon? The answer appears to be no.

If the evidence shows that GZ started the physical altercation, then YES I would be an adamant supporter of TM. Heck regardless of how it ended, with either of them dead, I would support the person who was attacked first.

With NO evidence either way though, I would not convict someone because what I think. To put someone away in prison, I want to know that they are the one to throw the first punch.

 

[gxm]

What's not the law?

If, as so many seem to be claiming, Mr Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and "stand his ground" then Trayvon had that right as well. Two critical differences here however. The first is that Trayvon attempted to flee, he tried to avoid the conflict. Zimmerman did not. The second is that some do not believe that Trayvon had ANY rights here at all, including the right to be left alone.

The words 'stand your ground' have an absolute meaning in the english language. They mean, literally, to remain where you are. This, obviously, is something Zimmerman did not do. He advanced. His ground was somewhere a hundred yards behind him. He made the choice to leave it.

As I said, the sad part in all this is that Trayvon was unsuccessful in his efforts at self defense. Unfortunately he didn't have a gun or knife with which to defend himself from the advancing armed menace. He only had his hands, and that wasn't enough.

My question would be this... had Trayvon succeeded in defending himself, had he succeeded in 'standing his ground,' if he somehow pulled off the miracle and killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman and "stand your ground' today be as adamant in their support for Trayvon? The answer appears to be no.

BBM.

English and Legalese are, IMO, two completely different languages. IANAL, but apparently Florida's SYG laws allow pursuit.

If the evidence showed that GZ threw the first blow, punched TM in the nose, knocked him to the ground, and beat him, then yes, I would be adamant in my support for TM.

FTR, I'm not so much adamantly pro-GZ as I am adamantly averse to "justice" conducted by mob rule. IMO, this case has been a witch hunt and I have yet to see evidence to prove otherwise.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[beach]

Okay peeps. Before this gets too heated and personal, reminder that there is always the option to scroll on by a post that pushes your buttons. Nobody is obligated to respond to anyone else. It is a choice. If you opt to respond, it must be done with a respectful and civil tone.


Carry on.

 

[Karmady]

BBM.

English and Legalese are, IMO, two completely different languages. IANAL, but apparently Florida's SYG laws allow pursuit.

If the evidence showed that GZ threw the first blow, punched TM in the nose, knocked him to the ground, and beat him, then yes, I would be adamant in my support for TM.

FTR, I'm not so much adamantly pro-GZ as I am adamantly averse to "justice" conducted by mob rule. IMO, this case has been a witch hunt and I have yet to see evidence to prove otherwise.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:

My feelings exactly!

 

[Chris_Texas]

BBM

What evidence is there that TM tried to 'flee' as you say?

The 911 call in which Zimmerman says that Trayvon had run away.

GZ has every right in the world to ask TM a question 'what are you doing here'. That is not against the law.

That depends on a lot of factors. How, where, why, the tone of voice, the actions and words which preceeded the question, the body language of the people involved, all have a bearing. All of these factors could easily lead a rational person to conclude that they are in immediate danger.

If someone comes up to you and asks you a question, and you proceed to swing at them because you don't like how they spoke to you, guess what? You are in the wrong. That is the law.

Always? If you are on foot, at night, walking home in the rain, and some strange guy chases you for a couple blocks before catching you, it really would not much matter WHAT he asked you. You would be at the very least concerned, and likely frightened as hell. Even if the guy came panting up and asked you if you have seen his lost puppy, you would be scared. And if he seemed in any way aggressive or otherwoise creepy you would be completely justified in defending yourself.

Particularly if you were a kid.

We want kids to aggressively defend themselves from adults who threaten or frighten them. That's what we teach them. We want them to immediately scream and kick and bite and do everything in their power to disable the creep that's frightening them. It is our job as adults to never put kids in a situation where they feel threatened, and if we do and they react the fault is assumed to be OURS. If Trayvon defended himself he was only doing what we expect and train every kid to do.

Zimmerman violated those basic rules. He chased around an innocent kid, at night, and against police instructions. He eventually caught him and killed him. Everything else that happened is irrelevant. In my opinion

 

[Phoenixfla]

His job of defending himself.

Thank you for clarifying. I originally read your statement to mean for TM to finish the job meaning to kill GZ.

If it's okay and legal for the armed and aggressive Zimmerman to kill Trayvon, then it certainly would be totally acceptable for the fleeing and unarmed Trayvon to kill George.

Absoultely thats correct - As long as TM reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. I have seen no evidence that leads me to believe that.


On the other hand - the fact that TM had no injuries other than bruising to his knuckles, and GZ DID have multiple injuries, leads ME to believe that at the time the trigger was pulled, GZ reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

 

[Phoenixfla]

BBM.

English and Legalese are, IMO, two completely different languages. IANAL, but apparently Florida's SYG laws allow pursuit.

If the evidence showed that GZ threw the first blow, punched TM in the nose, knocked him to the ground, and beat him, then yes, I would be adamant in my support for TM.

FTR, I'm not so much adamantly pro-GZ as I am adamantly averse to "justice" conducted by mob rule. IMO, this case has been a witch hunt and I have yet to see evidence to prove otherwise.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Chris_Texas]

BBM


Just to be clear, re: the bold: That is not a proven fact. That is clearly your opinion, but it is not a proven fact.

Zimmerman stated on the 911 tape that Trayvon had run from him. Further, we know from the location of the killing that Trayvon very likely did run, just as Zimmerman claimed. Finally, we know from the girlfriend on the phone that she had urged him to run. Trayvon, likely playing the cool guy, said he wouldn't run and would just walk quickly, but according to Zimmerman he ran.

 

[LambChop]

BBM.

English and Legalese are, IMO, two completely different languages. IANAL, but apparently Florida's SYG laws allow pursuit.

If the evidence showed that GZ threw the first blow, punched TM in the nose, knocked him to the ground, and beat him, then yes, I would be adamant in my support for TM.

FTR, I'm not so much adamantly pro-GZ as I am adamantly averse to "justice" conducted by mob rule. IMO, this case has been a witch hunt and I have yet to see evidence to prove otherwise.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

I think the part that allows pursuit is of a criminal. TM was NOT involved an any criminal activity when GZ was pursuing him. GZ had absolute no reason to follow he had already reported it to LE. It was now an LE matter and had nothing to do with GZ. He had no authority to follow TM. jmo

 

[cityslick]

The 911 call in which Zimmerman says that Trayvon had run away.

Was he running away from GZ? Was he running do to 'fear'? How do we know this?



That depends on a lot of factors. How, where, why, the tone of voice, the actions and words which preceeded the question, the body language of the people involved, all have a bearing. All of these factors could easily lead a rational person to conclude that they are in immediate danger.

I don't think so. I don't think if someone asks you a question, you immedietely have the right to respond with force. If TM was so afraid that he started running, why did he stop at some point? Why didn't he run straight to his house?


Always? If you are on foot, at night, walking home in the rain, and some strange guy chases you for a couple blocks before catching you, it really would not much matter WHAT he asked you. You would be at the very least concerned, and likely frightened as hell. Even if the guy came panting up and asked you if you have seen his lost puppy, you would be scared. And if he seemed in any way aggressive or otherwoise creepy you would be completely justified in defending yourself.

But again, there is no proof this happened at this time. There is no proof or evidence that TM was running away from GZ.

Particularly if you were a kid.

We want kids to aggressively defend themselves from adults who threaten or frighten them. That's what we teach them. We want them to immediately scream and kick and bite and do everything in their power to disable the creep that's frightening them. It is our job as adults to never put kids in a situation where they feel threatened, and if we do and they react the fault is assumed to be OURS. If Trayvon defended himself he was only doing what we expect and train every kid to do.

Zimmerman violated those basic rules. He chased around an innocent kid, at night, and against police instructions. He eventually caught him and killed him. Everything else that happened is irrelevant.

Answers in red.

 

[Chris_Texas]

If the evidence shows that GZ started the physical altercation, then YES I would be an adamant supporter of TM. Heck regardless of how it ended, with either of them dead, I would support the person who was attacked first.

With NO evidence either way though, I would not convict someone because what I think. To put someone away in prison, I want to know that they are the one to throw the first punch.

Why would the first punch matter?

You are not allowed to kill people because they punched you. You are, with only a few exceptions, allowed to kill someone if you can convice a jury that you believed you were in danger of being killed or suffering a critical injury and that no other reasonable options were available to you.

The question in this case is not so much who hit who first, but rather does Zimmerman's decision to pursue Trayvon negate his right to employ deadly force in any subsequent physical altercation.

In my opinion, etc.

 

[LambChop]

My feelings exactly!

But you do know that GZ is charged with 2nd degree murder? So how is that a witch hunt? He's been arrested and charged. jmo

 

[Maxim]

You know, my husband was LE and one of the things he hated, hated was when someone would answer a question with a question. It's absolutely disrespectful. Decline to answer the question if you must but when you are doing something the other person feels is wrong and they ask you "why" they deserve an answer.

How else was TM suppose to know why GZ was following him. GZ's return question had implications that TM had no business being where he was and then GZ doesn't let TM know who he is as if GZ is some type of authority. GZ had no uniform, no badge, no reason to stop or detain anyone. No one gave GZ that authority. While it is not against the law to follow someone or ask a question of someone you meet, at this point on a rainy dark night, GZ had no authority to detain TM, no authority to ask him questions. No one gave him that authority, no one. At the very least he owned TM an explanation TM's question, why are you following me???? "Because I'm with Neighborhood Watch, we've had some breakins and I'm checking to make sure you live here." He owed that to him the minute he stated to pursue.

I really believe GZ did not want TM to be anyone other than who he thought he should be and he was going to be the one to detain him, hold him for LE and be able to say "I stopped another one from getting away."

This man has no common sense. None. jmo

"Disrepectful" . . . If LE asks Joe Garcia (who happens to look Mexican) for an ID, and Joe asks, "Did I do something wrong?" not only is it not disrepectful, the question is justified. The act of asking for ID is illegal, if there were no other reason for stopping Joe. Besides, respect is earned; it doesn't arrive in the mail, nor is it issued with birth certificates. If I don't know you, I can't respect or disrespect you . . . but I'll try to be polite.

There were two participants. What applies to one should apply to the other.

 

[Phoenixfla]

Zimmerman stated on the 911 tape that Trayvon had run from him. Further, we know from the location of the killing that Trayvon very likely did run, just as Zimmerman claimed. Finally, we know from the girlfriend on the phone that she had urged him to run. Trayvon, likely playing the cool guy, said he wouldn't run and would just walk quickly, but according to Zimmerman he ran.

I think beach meant this part:

However, Trayvon was the only person defending themself.