Knock Knock. . .

[turtlespeed 226]

WTF is the defense strategy there?

I wonder if they just opened it up for appeal if it goes sideways.

OOPS- forgot the link.

edited to add a link to CNN, since some of you are so foxaphobic.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[RonD1120 62]

Well, IMO, the defense strategy is going to be some people talk s**t. Let's move on.

TM attacked the defendant and broke his nose, had him on the ground and was beating him. The defendant had no way of knowing if TM had a weapon and he was in fear of his life.

But this has all been argued to death. We can only wait and see.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

TM attacked the defendant ...

Since you were apparently the only eye witness to the event, don't you have some sort of a moral obligation to contact the court and offer to testify?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Anvilbrother 0]

I guess george did this to himself.....

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002665883/3511732629_ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg_xlarge.jpeg

Made it a clicky-edit

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Anvilbrother

I guess george did this to himself.....

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002665883/3511732629_ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg_xlarge.jpeg

Made it a clicky-edit

No, it's been pretty well established that those injuries happened during the scuffle with TM. (pics are of GZ's head injuries for those who don't want to click).
What hasn't been established is how the scuffle started.
GZ says TM attacked him while GZ was returning to his car after losing sight of TM.
That may even be true.

But it may not.

GZ says he returned directly to his car after losing sight of TM. That may also be true.

But it may not.

Is it really plausible to think that GZ would simply give up and go back to his car intending to drive off and forget about the whole thing?
Or did he maybe look around a bit more to see if he couldn't find TM?
Or maybe TM approached GZ and asked why GZ was following him, and GZ started the fight. Perhaps grabbing TM saying something like "I have you now, you're coming with me."

I honestly don't know. I wasn't there. The only side of the story we have is GZ's. And he is most definitely going to tell it in a way that portrays himself in the best possible light.

But I have met people that have the "vigilante" attitude. As GZ seems to have. And the scenario I propose above is a lot more plausible than TM simply walking up to GZ and attacking him.

Although that is a possibility too.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Anvilbrother

I guess george did this to himself.....

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002665883/3511732629_ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg_xlarge.jpeg

Made it a clicky-edit

WolfRiverJoe said it well, so I'll keep it short. Just because Zimmerman was on the losing end of the fight (that no-one denied occurred), can you not imagine any possibility other than that Martin started it? Have you never seen a fight where the instigator finds himself on the losing end?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Is it really plausible to think that GZ would simply give up and go back to his car intending to drive off and forget about the whole thing?
Or did he maybe look around a bit more to see if he couldn't find TM?
Or maybe TM approached GZ and asked why GZ was following him, and GZ started the fight. Perhaps grabbing TM saying something like "I have you now, you're coming with me."

It's just as plausible:

GZ is on his way back to his car and TM shows up and sucker punches GZ get's on top of him and beats the hell out of him, getting shot for it.

MY POINT is unless new evidance comes out, EITHER could have happen. The first version is if you just don't believe GZ story. The second wb that you just don't believe TM supporters side.

The truth most likely lay in the middle.

I find the passion here funny. So many people so sure of there position..... not enough evidence that we have to form an reasonable decision. Other than TM is dead so therefore SOMEONE should get in trouble.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[RonD1120 62]

GeorgiaDon

***I guess george did this to himself.....

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002665883/3511732629_ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg_xlarge.jpeg

Made it a clicky-edit

WolfRiverJoe said it well, so I'll keep it short. Just because Zimmerman was on the losing end of the fight (that no-one denied occurred), can you not imagine any possibility other than that Martin started it? Have you never seen a fight where the instigator finds himself on the losing end?

Don

And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon?

Sure, but then wouldn't he be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, and/or murder?

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

RonD1120

******I guess george did this to himself.....

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002665883/3511732629_ht_george_zimmerman_injuries_ll_120517_wg_xlarge.jpeg

Made it a clicky-edit

WolfRiverJoe said it well, so I'll keep it short. Just because Zimmerman was on the losing end of the fight (that no-one denied occurred), can you not imagine any possibility other than that Martin started it? Have you never seen a fight where the instigator finds himself on the losing end?

Don

And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon?

Sure, but it's no longer self defense. It's usually voluntary manslaughter.

Just like if you are in a fight (no matter who started it) and your opponent dies as a result, you will usually face charges.
If you can't show that you didn't start it, you didn't escalate it, and you did all you could to avoid the fight, then the odds are pretty good that you will go to prison for a couple years.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon?

So person A doesn't like person B for some reason. Person A arms themselves, then goes and attacks person B with their fists. Person B responds, and then person A takes out their weapon and kills person B. Person A claims he was in fear for his life, and no charges are filed. Is this an acceptable outcome in your eyes? Makes it easy to get rid of a rival.

Think it doesn't happen? Read the article Rick posted in the Zimmerman jury thread (post #87). Drug dealers are shooting it out on the street, innocent bystanders are killed, and no-one is prosecuted because the police can't prove who started shooting first and who was standing their ground. People are shot in the back as they are walking away, and no charges. Numerous instances of people arming themselves, instigating a confrontation, wounding/killing their target, then successfully claiming "stand your ground". I doubt the Wild West was ever like this.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Kennedy 0]

My question is how can anyone reach the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman instigated the violence?

It seems to me that anyone calling him a murderer is doing so based on their "knowing" what happened or "knowing" what Zimmerman was thinking. If you believe in the presumption of innocence and prosecutors holding the burden of proof, I don't know how this could lead to a guilty verdict.

Even if Zimmerman is a horrible racist sociopath who wanted to kill Trayvon Martin the moment he saw the hoodie, I still don't see a murder conviction based on facts in evidence. Then again this is reality and the law doesn't always outweigh everything else in a courtroom.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Kennedy

My question is how can anyone reach the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman instigated the violence?...

... Then again this is reality and the law doesn't always outweigh everything else in a courtroom.

He doesn't necessarily have to have instigated the violence for it to be voluntary manslaughter.

He did instigate the situation, by following TM. He further escalated the situation by getting out of his car and following on foot when TM tried to evade by going where GZ couldn't follow in a car.

Regardless of who threw the first punch in the fight, GZ pretty much blew his claim of self defense by deliberately putting himself into the situation.

At least according to the self defense laws as I understand them. I am pretty knowledgeable on them, specifically for Wisconsin, but also in general everywhere (each state has variations, but the basics are the same).
I'm a little disturbed at how many people don't seem to understand the requirements for claiming self defense by a civilian using lethal force. They are written pretty clearly, and aren't all that difficult to understand.
The situation must be "unavoidable" and not caused by the person claiming self defense (there are other elements to self defense, but this is the one that applies here).
If I was to start a verbal argument with someone, and a fight resulted from that argument, I would have a very difficult time claiming self defense, unless I could separate the argument from the physical fight by showing that I tried to walk away, or in some other way tried to avoid the confrontation.

It is possible that the defense will be able to separate the final, fatal fight between GZ and TM from GZ's following of TM, suspecting him of being "up to something."
If so, GZ may walk.
If the prosecution can demonstrate that the entire event was one incident, not 2 separate things, then GZ may well be convicted.

And of course, he may walk or be convicted no matter what.

Because your last statement is absolutely correct.
"Truth" is often the first victim in a court of law.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I don't pretend to know if Zimmerman is guilty of murder, some lesser crime, or if he's a hero who just took out the garbage as some seem to imply. I do object to the notion that he must be as innocent as new fallen snow because his nose got bloodied. I'm happy to let the jury hear the evidence and come to a decision.

A young man went out to pick up some snacks and ended up dead. I'm not happy to relegate that to "shit happens". There had better be a very good reason why Martin, or me, or you cannot walk home from the store and end up dead at the hand of someone who claims to be protecting the neighborhood.

People claim that following someone is not provocative or threatening. Imagine your child calls you and tells you they are walking home alone, after dark, and a man they don't recognize is following them. How do you imagine most parents would respond? Would they rush out to meet their child and try to protect them from the stranger? Or would they tell their child that following someone is not illegal, and that they should just ignore the stranger?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BIGUN 1,488]

Maybe it was multiple gunmen and one bullet coming from the direction of the grassy knoll?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I take it you're in the "taking out the trash" camp? Or perhaps the "shit happens" camp. Either way it's all good, at least until it's your kid, right?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 898]

Isn't GZ's claim that he was returning to his truck to meet the cops on the way and was confronted/jumped?

[Kennedy 0]

Following a suspicious person while on the phone with 9-1-1 directing police to the person's location does not rise even close to the level of action required to negate self defense claims against attack.

Also, even if guilty of fighting words or initiating a physical confrontation, walking away surrendering or fleeing is enough to separate the violence and restore the possibility of self defense.

Add those two things together with the lack of direct evidence other than Zimmerman's testimony, and you have no basis for refuting self defense.
(again, I'm not saying its true, just that it stands up in court)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RonD1120 62]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

And if on the losing end and in fear of his life, does the instigator not have the right to defend himself with a weapon?

So person A doesn't like person B for some reason. Person A arms themselves, then goes and attacks person B with their fists. Person B responds, and then person A takes out their weapon and kills person B. Person A claims he was in fear for his life, and no charges are filed. Is this an acceptable outcome in your eyes? Makes it easy to get rid of a rival.

Think it doesn't happen? Read the article Rick posted in the Zimmerman jury thread (post #87). Drug dealers are shooting it out on the street, innocent bystanders are killed, and no-one is prosecuted because the police can't prove who started shooting first and who was standing their ground. People are shot in the back as they are walking away, and no charges. Numerous instances of people arming themselves, instigating a confrontation, wounding/killing their target, then successfully claiming "stand your ground". I doubt the Wild West was ever like this.

Don

I am still stuck on the fact that the investigating officers considered TM's death as justified. That situation did not change until BHO, J. Jackson and A. Sharpton weighed in.

As a retired substance abuse disorder treatment counselor for court ordered clients, I have had a lot of contact with these young, droopy pants, hoodie wearing thugs. I don't have any trouble accepting GZ's defense statement.

Question, how do you think this scenario would have played out in the mountains of north GA?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

As a retired substance abuse disorder treatment counselor for court ordered clients, I have had a lot of contact with these young, droopy pants, hoodie wearing thugs. I don't have any trouble accepting GZ's defense statement.

So being young, male, and a bad fashion sense means "deserves to die"? Is that also so if the person is white?

Quote

Question, how do you think this scenario would have played out in the mountains of north GA?

I suppose you'd have fed his body to your pigs.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I am still stuck on the fact that the investigating officers considered TM's death as justified. That situation did not change until BHO, J. Jackson and A. Sharpton weighed in.

As a retired substance abuse disorder treatment counselor for court ordered clients, I have had a lot of contact with these young, droopy pants, hoodie wearing thugs. I don't have any trouble accepting GZ's defense statement.

You're nigruh-baiting, Ron. It's beneath your intellect.

[RonD1120 62]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

As a retired substance abuse disorder treatment counselor for court ordered clients, I have had a lot of contact with these young, droopy pants, hoodie wearing thugs. I don't have any trouble accepting GZ's defense statement.

So being young, male, and a bad fashion sense means "deserves to die"? Is that also so if the person is white?

Quote

Question, how do you think this scenario would have played out in the mountains of north GA?

I suppose you'd have fed his body to your pigs.

Don

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I will not own your assumptions.

ETA: BTW, my first statement referred to whites as well as blacks. In my former life, skin color made no difference. A thug is a thug is a thug.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Andy9o8

Quote

I am still stuck on the fact that the investigating officers considered TM's death as justified. That situation did not change until BHO, J. Jackson and A. Sharpton weighed in.

As a retired substance abuse disorder treatment counselor for court ordered clients, I have had a lot of contact with these young, droopy pants, hoodie wearing thugs. I don't have any trouble accepting GZ's defense statement.

You're nigruh-baiting, Ron. It's beneath your intellect.

No, I call it profiling.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[BIGUN 1,488]

GeorgiaDon

I take it you're in the "taking out the trash" camp? Or perhaps the "shit happens" camp. Either way it's all good, at least until it's your kid, right?

Don

I am in the "you can talk about what happened for 50 years camp and its all speculation" camp. Only one person today knows what happened. All the posts and variations of what may have happened don't mean shit from a good grade of peanut butter.

I recently served on a Jury in the beginning of June for a week and wound up as foreman. He was not the one who committed the murder, but the alleged accomplice. You can sit here and talk all you want... But, until you've received 39 pages of instructions from a judge and told to follow them to the letter; you will never have any clue as to what happened or what the outcome will be. I will tell you this. One may be guilty; not guilty or not innocent.

My opinion in this matter is that neither one of them is innocent; but one of them is dead. And, that is the only fact we have. And, after being in the jury room as foreman in which the first vote was an almost even split... where both sides had good and well thought out discussions; do not be surprised no matter what the verdict.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Kennedy

Following a suspicious person while on the phone with 9-1-1 directing police to the person's location does not rise even close to the level of action required to negate self defense claims against attack.

Also, even if guilty of fighting words or initiating a physical confrontation, walking away surrendering or fleeing is enough to separate the violence and restore the possibility of self defense.

Add those two things together with the lack of direct evidence other than Zimmerman's testimony, and you have no basis for refuting self defense.
(again, I'm not saying its true, just that it stands up in court)

Well, according to a couple of firearms instructors that I know and the lawyer who advises them, yes it does. This case is being used as an example of what not to do in carry classes.
GZ deliberately put himself into the situation.
It was avoidable.

He got out of his car. He didn't have to do that.
He followed TM after the police dispatcher said that they didn't need him to do that.

Both of those make it even more avoidable.

The big question is whether or not GZ willingly abandoned following TM, or if he stopped because TM had disappeared. And did he directly return to his car after hanging up with the police dispatcher or did he continue to look for TM?
Given the things GZ said to the dispatcher about the TM being a "punk" and "always getting away", I find it hard to believe he just gave up and walked away.

GZ claims he was returning to his truck when TM jumped him.
But that's what he'd claim no matter what really happened.
In post 7, Mirage62 points out that there are two sides to this story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
We are only getting GZs side, and I tend toward taking it with a "big grain of salt", understanding that GZ is going to tell it from his point of view, putting himself in the best possible light.

And RonD1120 wrote:

Quote

I am still stuck on the fact that the investigating officers considered TM's death as justified.

I thought the investigating officers wanted him charged. It was the local prosecutor who decided against it.
But I could be wrong on that.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo