17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

Status
Not open for further replies.
heres my thing......Most people would agree that gz didnt act reasonably. It is not reasonable to size up a teenager as a criminal in two minutes and kill him. It is not reasonable to follow a person who might be dangerous. It is not reasonable to believe killing a person should just "blow over". gz assumptions about this child were wrong. Can we not agree on at least that?? and because he wrongly assumed someone was a criminal, he acted in an unbelievably irresponsible way. In a way that a responsible adult or gun owner shouldnt act. He should be held responsible and accountable for his actions.
 
We have arguments over this law, but it was also stated in the msm interviews that if a person starts a fight, they cannot then claim syg or self defense. Maybe that is what AC is thinking.

I also think there may be some evidence that gz already had his gun drawn or showed his gun to gain leverage and that is a felony. If he did this he loses his syg stance because he was in the process of committing a felony himself. This is all my opinion.
 
You have to include everything and not just a snippet.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Legal experts have brought up the First Aggressor Exception. Just finding yourself on the losing end of a fight isn't automatically SYG or self defense, if you were the First Aggressor. That's why GZ's 911 calls, his medical records, his police statement, will all be a factor in a court of law. There are defense attorneys who have been interviewed who disagree. But given that they're criminal defense attorneys, it's pretty much what I would expect them to say, so we will see if and when this goes to trial.



JMHO


In regards to (2) (a)
I think it would be difficult to get away from someone if they were on top of you,had you pinned down, pounding your head into the concrete.

And then we have this exception>>>

BUT, even under the old law, George Zimmerman would have been entitled to stand his ground and use non-deadly force (i.e. fisticuffs) without first attempting to retreat. See Morris v. State, 715 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (There is no duty to avoid danger before using non-deadly force.)

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/
 
ITA. There is no way to know what someone is crying about just by looking at them. IMO, GZ thought this "would blow over" and his "frustration" over being arrested is behind his tears. And lets not forget that website picture he posted of vandalism to a Black cultural center shortly before his arrest. His words and quotes he posted indicate he feels he did the right thing. Like he's some kind of matyr. I'm not feeling that GZ has a meek or remorseful bone in his body.

GZ if he did indeed fear for his life and felt shooting was justified,why would he feel remorse? JMO If I had to kill someone to save myself not sure I would feel remorse, I would just be glad to be alive.If TM came at him and if they did struggle over the gun if he did not shoot he might have been the one killed.JMO
 
Nancy Grace interview with Angela Corey's regarding "Stand your Ground...

GRACE: “In a case like this when you are confronted with force — let’s just say for argument’s sake Zimmerman’s story is true, a 17-year-old hits him. Standing your ground, is he allowed under the law to shoot him dead?”

COREY: “Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing. I’ve prosecuted a woman who shot her husband and killed him because he slapped her, and we argued that was not deadly force and she was convicted and sent to state prison.”

Corey made two very clear points here. The first is that, in order for "stand your ground" to work, the dead person must have been in the process of committing a "forcible felony" when the struggle happened. In other words, Trayvon needed to be engaged in a crime such as an assult on Zimmerman.We now know from the probable cause affadavit that Corey is using a statement from the friend Trayvon was speaking with on the phone at the time his confrontation with Zimmerman started.According to that witness, Zimmerman approached Trayvon, which means Trayvon would not have been engaged in a felony at the time the struggle started.Secondly, it appears from the charge that Corey simply isn't convinced that whatever happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon justified the use of deadly force. Maybe she will argue that Zimmerman could have protected himself with some lesser level of self-defense.She mentioned the example of the woman who was slapped by her husband and retaliated with a gunshot. That women was convicted because Corey convinced a jury that she wasn't justified in using deadly force.Of course, that is a very subjective call. I would expect Zimmerman's attorney to argue that Trayvon was so aggressive that Zimmerman feared for his life and, in the heat of the moment, didn't see any other way out other than to pull out his gun and fire.It will all play out in court. But for all the armchair detectives out there, these are two points worth considering.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...dly-force-physical-force-second-degree-murder

Those two scenarios don't even equate. How can AC think we are so foolish?

A woman who shoots her husband for slapping her is in no way the same as a man who shoots a stranger who he believes to have been acting suspiciously who is now on top of him. They're worlds apart.

If she's going to site other cases, it would be refreshing if she were respectful enough of the audience's intelligence to pick similar situations.
 
In regards to (2) (a)
I think it would be difficult to get away from someone if they were on top of you,had you pinned down, pounding your head into the concrete.

We have that alledged story of GZ's head being pounded into the concrete, yet Trayvon was found, belly down, some distance from any concrete. IF as the story goes, GZ reached down to get his gun and shoot Trayvon while his head his being pounded into the cement, logic would dictate that the cement be where Trayvon was found, wouldn't it?

This is one of those details that does not make sense.
 
I think it would be difficult to get away from someone if they were on top of you,had you pinned down, pounding your head into the concrete.

And then we have this exception>>>

[/I]

Then let it be proven in a court of law, with medical records and supporting evidence. GZ's word alone doesn't mean a whole lot considering that he couldn't really say much else other that it was all self defense, and that it was all the dead kid's fault, knowing that this dead boy could no longer speak to dispute what he says.

As well as all of the contradictions and inconsistencies, such as how was his head being pummeled, his mouth covered, his nose smashed into his face but he still has the ability to scream nice and loudly for help in the midst it all, then he shoots a kid in the chest while his head is being pummeled into the sidewalk, yet the kid's body is face down in the opposite direction, with his head away from the sidewalk.

JMHO
 
GZ if he did indeed fear for his life and felt shooting was justified,why would he feel remorse? JMO If I had to kill someone to save myself not sure I would feel remorse, I would just be glad to be alive.If TM came at him and if they did struggle over the gun if he did not shoot he might have been the one killed.JMO

i would feel bad if i pursued someone that i wrongly accused of being a criminal and said altercation ended up in my killing another human because of my wrong assumptions. But that is just me.
 
I think she is arguing a reasonable person would not be in fear of their life from just a simple assault and they had to put in the "or forcible felony" for cases like kidnapping where an actual death threat was not made or a strong armed robbery.

If what GZ is saying is true, wouldn't you be afraid for your life? I sure would.

There was a case here - I think San Antonio - where two guys got in a wreck. One of them went into a fit of rage and went over to the other guy who was still in his vehicle, window rolled down, and took three full force punches to his head. There were witnesses. So the guy that was punched grabbed his concealed gun and shot him dead.

A clear case of self-defense. How many full force punches to the head should a person have to withstand before defending himself?

I see GZ in nearly the same light.
 
Those two scenarios don't even equate. How can AC think we are so foolish?

A woman who shoots her husband for slapping her is in no way the same as a man who shoots a stranger who he believes to have been acting suspiciously who is now on top of him. They're worlds apart.

If she's going to site other cases, it would be refreshing if she were respectful enough of the audience's intelligence to pick similar situations.

except for the fact that fighting a slap with a gun is unreasonable. Maybe thats the point she was trying to make. the whole force with force thing. idk thats my interpretation of where she was going with that.
 
i would feel bad if i pursued someone that i wrongly accused of being a criminal and said altercation ended up in my killing another human because of my wrong assumptions. But that is just me.

I think the difference here is "remorse". Remorse means you did something wrong, and you feel guilt.

I'd certainly feel terrible if I were in GZ's position, but not remorseful. If he's telling the truth, he did nothing whatsoever wrong, it was just a horrible misunderstanding and who knows where it would have ended if he didn't have a gun.
 
Then let it be proven in a court of law, with medical records and supporting evidence. GZ's word alone doesn't mean a whole lot considering that he couldn't really say much else other that it was all self defense, and that it was all the dead kid's fault, knowing that this dead boy could no longer speak to dispute what he says.

As well as all of the contradictions and inconsistencies, such as how was his head being pummeled, his mouth covered, his nose smashed into his face but he still has the ability to scream nice and loudly for help in the midst it all, then he shoots a kid in the chest while his head is being pummeled into the sidewalk, yet the kid's body is face down in the opposite direction, with his head away from the sidewalk.

JMHO

and please don't forget that he was barely conscious and one step away from having to wearing diapers and being spoon fed by his brother.

All I can say is I sure hope Zimmerman has himself some very good medical documentation because he's gonna need it.

~jmo~
 
If what GZ is saying is true, wouldn't you be afraid for your life? I sure would.

There was a case here - I think San Antonio - where two guys got in a wreck. One of them went into a fit of rage and went over to the other guy who was still in his vehicle, window rolled down, and took three full force punches to his head. There were witnesses. So the guy that was punched grabbed his concealed gun and shot him dead.

A clear case of self-defense. How many full force punches to the head should a person have to withstand before defending himself?

I see GZ in nearly the same light.

Which version are we supposed to believe from Zimmerman? Father's version, brother's version, Frank Taaffe's version, or Joe Oliver's version?



~jmo~
 
and please don't forget that he was barely conscious and one step away from having to wearing diapers and being spoon fed by his brother.

All I can say is I sure hope Zimmerman has himself some very good medical documentation because he's gonna need it.

~jmo~

The law doesn't require that you be seriously injured to use the SYG. In fact, you don't have to be injured at all.

Whatever GZ's brother has said to the media is pretty irrelevant in a court of law, IMHO. His characterization of the injuries - is irrelevant.
 
If what GZ is saying is true, wouldn't you be afraid for your life? I sure would.

There was a case here - I think San Antonio - where two guys got in a wreck. One of them went into a fit of rage and went over to the other guy who was still in his vehicle, window rolled down, and took three full force punches to his head. There were witnesses. So the guy that was punched grabbed his concealed gun and shot him dead.

A clear case of self-defense. How many full force punches to the head should a person have to withstand before defending himself?

I see GZ in nearly the same light.

And, if this is the case then i would agree that gz may have had a right to use his gun. All we have though, is his word as to what happened. Im not so sure that i believe his accounting of events because they just dont seem to add up. Unless there is something missing that we havent been privy to.
 
GZ if he did indeed fear for his life and felt shooting was justified,why would he feel remorse? JMO If I had to kill someone to save myself not sure I would feel remorse, I would just be glad to be alive.If TM came at him and if they did struggle over the gun if he did not shoot he might have been the one killed.JMO

Thank goodness this has never happened to me, I have never been put in a position where it was my life or someone else's. However, I have seen victims that have killed their attacker, where it truly was one of them was going to die, that have had horrible nightmares and felt great remorse for killing someone. They knew that they would have been killed themselves had they not killed their attacker and yet they still felt guilt over taking a life. I would say that for a normal, rational, compassionate person that guilt and remorse after killing their attacker would be a normal response. Are they glad they are alive? Of course, but they would have preferred to not have killed someone in the process.

MOO
 
Which version are we supposed to believe from Zimmerman? Father's version, brother's version, Frank Taaffe's version, or Joe Oliver's version?



~jmo~

None of them. His own version is what I want to hear, under oath, or in a recorded police interview.

And the versions of the witnesses, and EMTs, and any medical facility he saw in the next few days.
 
The law doesn't require that you be seriously injured to use the SYG. In fact, you don't have to be injured at all.

Whatever GZ's brother has said to the media is pretty irrelevant in a court of law, IMHO. His characterization of the injuries - is irrelevant.

I guess we will have to see how it all plays out in court. I'm at least very thankful that this very dangerous man is off the streets right now. Lord knows, it could have been that poor 7-year-old or 9-year-old kid that he seen as suspicious and decided to murder them as well.


~jmo~
 
According to what Ms. Corey said in her interview with NG, Trayvon would have had to be in the process of committing a forcible felony against Zimmerman in which case Zimmerman could claim that he was standing his ground. Like the example cited in the interview with Ms. Corey, the woman claimed that her husband slapped her, she went for the gun, and shot him. She couldn't claim she was standing her ground because the husband was not in the act of committing a forcible felony against her.

Secondly, the stand your ground law is not going to cover Zimmerman if he was the first aggressor and we already know that is exactly what he was. He pursued Trayvon; therefore, he can't turn around and say that he murdered him because he was standing his ground.

(I myself haven't read the law nor will I and am only going by Ms. Corey's interpretation of the law as she has prosecuted many cases under the SYG law. I'm sure there are many interpretations of the laws out there and I will leave it to an attorney that I trust to make that decision).

~jmo~

Zimmerman can claim SYG if he reasonably believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm. He could also claim SYG if he tried to use deadly force to prevent an individual from committing a forcible felony. Well I really doubt Zimmerman is going to claim he tried to prevent forcible felony. I am not sure why she brought up forcible felony at all. Because it's rather obvious Zimmerman is not going to claim that he was trying to prevent forcible felony but rather that he was trying to prevent death/great bodily harm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
2,214
Total visitors
2,401

Forum statistics

Threads
589,954
Messages
17,928,223
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top