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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not guilty of murder. Not manslaughter. IMO GZ's action were reckless and led to TM's death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not what the law says. If he has a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death, That is self defense. That is what the law says.

People don't have like it but it is the LAW. Not up to subjective feelings.

IT is the law. He was already bloodied. He was being held down on the ground.

He was afraid and calling for help.

That meets the burden of reasonable fear. That is all that is needed.

 

[lisalei321]

I'm predicting a hung jury on this one!

Sent from my LG Spirit using Tapatalk 2

 

[cat28]

Most of the facts support George's version. He had injuries to his nose and head. Even though the injuries weren't severe, after being hit so many times, George felt that they were. There were grass stains on the knees of Trayvon's pants and on the back of George's clothing. This supports John Good's statements that Trayvon was on top, on his knees, MMA style. George was lying on his back. According to Rachel's testimony, Trayvon told her that he was at the back of his father's girlfriend's house 2-3 minutes before he saw Zimmerman. He could have been inside in less than a minute. Since his body was found 70 yards away, he must have circled back toward the T.

BBM The key to my backdoor does not fit my front door. Maybe, Trayvon had a front door key and had to go around to get in. Would that have put him closer to George?

 

[Perthgirl62]

That is what I don't get by those who want GZ convicted. Show me the facts!

Show me that GZ did anything but get beat up by TM, while on his back on the ground, being held there and shot to save his life.

Show me that TM was not beating on GZ. Because if you can do that, Then maybe, But the facts are that the man was injured after being assaulted by TM.
People want to say he was not injured "ENOUGH". That is not the law. The law states he does not have to be injured at all. He just has to have reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.. No actual injuries.

That is the LAW and you can not get around that.

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

But under your assumption, consider this scenario. Someone is assaulted (and we don't know who confronted who in this case) and then the assaultee manages to get the upper hand, then they are shot by the assaulter it's ok, because it's self defence. imo

 

[PaperDoll]

It's not a great analogy, but if you got jumped and raped but you had a gun and shot the aggressor, would you feel empathy for who you just killed?

According to GZ (which evidence shows TM was on top of him), this guy was going to kill him, or at least he had a reasonable fear of it. I agree saying it's 'God's plan' is not a great thing to say but how do you expect a guy to feel remorse for someone that was trying to (in his mind) kill him?

The thing is this would not have happened had GZ stayed put. I know I would regret killing someone because of my own actions. Again, GZ isn't telling all, his story changes so I feel he's hiding the truth.

His injuries IMO are minor to the way he described the fight. That night and the next day I saw NO BRUISING and usually when you get a bruise, the bruise gets worse the next day, then changes color. Where on earth are the bruises? I see a small scratch on his nose when the pic was taken at the police station and yet he claimed he was being pounded on multiple times. I'm so confused... When I bump myself and get bruised, that bruise lasts for days then changes color. The back of his head has scratches and not at all banged up like he claims his head was being bashed into the pavement over a dozen times. He would not have gone to work the next day nor to class that night if the fight was as bad as he said it was. I'm not buying into his story. He was able to talk to the police, do the walk through and no major injuries what so ever???????? :twocents:

 

[lisasalinger]

There is no way for anybody besides George Zimmerman to know who started the physical confrontation because NOBODY SAW IT. It could have been George, or it could have been Trayvon. We have two choices. The LAW says that if one choice points to innocence and the other points to guilt, the jurors MUST choose the one that points to INNOCENCE.

By the way, Rachel did not tell anyone that Trayvon said something like "Get off" until the trial started. She left that out for over a year.

BBM

IMO, most people assume that we don't believe Rachel because of the way she presented herself, and I would like to clear that up for myself only.

I have credibility issues with Rachel because:

1. She knew that her close friend was being watched that night, that he had contact with him, the phone went dead, and she never heard back from him... AND SHE NEVER TOLD ANYBODY.

2. She found out two days later that he was dead AND SHE NEVER TOLD ANYBODY about the phone call.

3. She continued to not say a word until the family came looking for her weeks later. WHY? It is not logical for me to believe that she just didn't want to get involved in her GOOD friend's supposed murder.

4. She lied about her name and age. She lied about why she didn't go to the funeral.

5. She never told anybody in her deposition that Trayvon said "get off, get off". WHY? Nobody asked her. I'll keep that tidbit to myself for a year and half because nobody specifically asked me. That simply doesn't make sense.

As a juror, those people have the right and job to either credit or discredit witnesses. I would seriously think about the items listed above and ask WHY?

IMO

 

[JeannaT]

Wish I could agree - so hard to listen to - unfocused and all over the map! Was expecting MOM to do a much better job than this.....he's not even making sense.
He has that la lala - la-lala - tone with all his ummms
IMO

I do agree that the jury may not be able to focus their attention thoughtfully and carefully, but I don't think that's the case. I envision these women (I could be wrong) to be roughly my age, and able to focus for a long time without being shouted at and having flashy colors grab their eyes. I can certainly follow this very very well - and I presume they are also of an age that can follow a quiet argument. I do think younger people are unable to do that, without being shouted at, and having glitsy colorful images flash in their eyes.

IMHO

 

[EGirl]

Only if the precise Testimony of Rachel Jeantel is as much disregarded and disrespected as the Humanity of Trayvon Benjamin Martin. IMO

:floorlaugh:

 

[nnglas]

You can't convict a man simply because you don't believe him. You have to prove why his story is false.

They are proving it. It doesn't make sense. GZ is a liar, the prosecution showed that. I don't believe him. Therefore I think his self defense claim is bogus. If his self defense claim is bogus then he committed manslaughter. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tpatte021]

I'm predicting a hung jury on this one!

Sent from my LG Spirit using Tapatalk 2

IMO - I completely agree

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Only if the precise Testimony of Rachel Jeantel is as much disregarded and disrespected as the Humanity of Trayvon Benjamin Martin. IMO

Perhaps people need to understand that George Zimmerman is also human, and didn't deserve to be beaten.

MOO, :twocents:

 

[cityslick]

This is so different from yesterday. MOM actually showing the evidence, piecemeal. Not yelling, not holding up skittles, not skipping around mocking GZ.

 

[especiallyheather]

Quick Question:
What happens if it is a hung jury? Does the judge decide or do they have to get a new jury like JA's case (PLEASE SAY NO!)
TIA

 

[cityslick]

BBM The key to my backdoor does not fit my front door. Maybe, Trayvon had a front door key and had to go around to get it. Would that have put him closer to George?

I don't think he had any keys in his pockets. Not sure so IMO.

 

[popsicle]

Having the flashlight on was a really good point. imo

 

[cityslick]

But under your assumption, consider this scenario. Someone is assaulted (and we don't know who confronted who in this case) and then the assaultee manages to get the upper hand, then they are shot by the assaulter it's ok, because it's self defence. imo

Sure, but the word you used, scenario, is exactly what MOM is talking about. You can't convict based on what if, theories, etc. Not if there is no evidence to support it.

 

[popsicle]

Quick Question:
What happens if it is a hung jury? Does the judge decide or do they have to get a new jury like JA's case (PLEASE SAY NO!)
TIA

They either retry it or drop the charges. imo

 

[DIBSY]

The <modsnip> O'Mara speaks down to the Judge, Jury and Court Room as if they were all imbeciles. Jury members ARE allowed to draw reasonable conclusions from what is presented to them. They ARE allowed to think Logically.....It's O'Mara who wants them to take soooo many unreasonable
L E A P S. He wants them to think it was Hey, A-Ok to shoot teenaged TM through the heart simply because there had been problems on GZ's turf... mentality in my book. IMO

We should all give thanks that none of Our children nor any of Our Grandchildren, or Brothers, or Sisters, or Friends were GZ's " suspects" that shameful night.

IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

I missed that in testimony, did GZ tell the cops he didn't think he shot him or didn't think he killed him. I thought I heard he said he knew he shot him because he fired his gun. IMO

GZ expressed surprise that TM was dead in his statement - even though he knew he was dead.
If he'd thought he just wounded him - why ask the first person out to call his wife instead of an ambulance? He got up, holstered his gun and walked back and forth. Why wasn't he still in fear for his life? Because he knew TM was dead. Just one more Zimmerman lie.

IMO

 

[JeannaT]

Quick Question:
What happens if it is a hung jury? Does the judge decide or do they have to get a new jury like JA's case (PLEASE SAY NO!)
TIA

The state would have to make a decision whether or not to re-try the case with a whole new jury.

iMHO