really comfy slippers
Active Member
Right from following to being mounted... What happend in between??? Zimmerman went looking for this, he will be jailed.
trayvan martin
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
sync0s
Well-Known Member
"Devil is in the details." - Michelle Bachmann
desert dude
Well-Known Member
OK. I will amend my "prejudice" comment; you did not mean racial prejudice. I am prejudiced against assertions where there is an utter lack of evidence to support them.
I am perfectly willing to change my viewpoint on this whole incident, but somebody needs to provide some sort of REAL evidence that contradicts the police report, the eye witness accounts, and Zimmer's injuries that are consistent with his statement. Feel free to provide some REAL evidence.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Here is your proof:
- Zimmerman followed Martin
- Zimmerman then, admittedly, shot and killed Martin
^ enough to charge with murder
Affirmative defense is the legal name for calling "self-defense." By law, it turns you from being the accused to being the accuser. Burden of proof is now on Zimmerman to prove in court that it was in self defense.
There is no argument against this that has any validity.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Under Florida's SYG law you are shielded from prosecution when you use lethal force in the face of "reasonable fear of great bodily harm, or death". Google "776.041". Read exception 2a. The law is the law.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
[SIZE=-1]776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
^ Must be proven by the accuser.(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless
[/SIZE]
By the way, nice try, but this does NOT protect you from charges being filed. Sorry.
Bonkleesha
Active Member
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
^ Must be proven by the accuser.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
By the way, nice try, but this does NOT protect you from charges being filed. Sorry.
Bonkleesha
Active Member
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Why do you keep posting this picture?
Bonkleesha
Active Member
jules winnfield is untrollable. look at that face... untrollable. like me. like a rock. rememeber the seger song?
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
That is a tasty burger!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I suppose the prosecutor might charge Zimmer and say the SYG law does not apply.
In a trial the only issue that might be worth deciding by a jury is whether Zimmer reasonably feared great bodily harm or death. Based on the only facts that we have before us (police report, eye witnesses, emt report) I see no possibility of a conviction (you never know what a jury might do, though). It seems to me the best a prosecutor might achieve would be a hung jury. Based on the facts we have, a not guilty verdict seems the only rational outcome. That's probably why Zimmer wasn't charged.
I agree that neighborhood watchmen can be annoying, but I hardly see this as "harassment". For a neighborhood watchman to ask you "what are you doing?" in a neighborhood plagued by burglaries seems reasonable. You got nothing here.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
A moderator needs to ban this moron.
Bonkleesha
Active Member
if you were serious, you would be betting ounces/pounds of herb on whether or not he gets charged. lets see some fire to match the smoke in ur bellies.
Bonkleesha
Active Member
u ban jules, marcellus gonna get angry!
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
You really like Pulp Fiction.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.
A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.
If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.
We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.
I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Internet + moron = grief
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Not to be argumentative and I've seen the point dismissed (incorrectly) by UB, but telling him they didn't "NEED" him to be followed is a far cry from being "ordered" "directed" "told not to" follow him. You're intelligent, surely you can see the difference in every regard, including legally. Stick with the facts that support your argument, stop spinning the dispatcher offering advice into some kind of directive. It didn't happen.
Your argument defeats your conclusion. Asking someone their business is called a query, not harassment. It's reasonable to say he had a legitimate purpose in asking him, like finding out if he belongs in a private, gated community. You may disagree, but I find it perfectly acceptable.
That said, none of the above vindicates Zimm if he physically touched or attacked Trayvan, but it most certainly doesn't surrender his right to defend himself. It's all going to come down to what happened at the moment the physical altercation began. If Zimm turned back to his vehicle as he says he did, he's off scott free, if it didn't happen that way, he could be in trouble.