- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,261
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I really like this thread....
Yes it is an absurdity, as there is no evidence of what you suggest/assert.M asking Z what his problem is does not justify drawing a weapon. It is illegal to do other than draw and shoot to stop in FL. No holding folks at gunpoint or threatening.
It is NOT an absurdity.
The evidence does not allow for that.It may very well have happened that way.
BS!You DO NOT know it didn't. Anymore than you KNOW it happened the way Z says it did.
Nobody knows but Z, and he may even be mistaken.
So climb down off that horse. You were not there. You cannot use declarative language for things you did not see nor have physical/forensic evidence for.
Yes it is an absurdity, as there is no evidence of what you suggest/assert.
The evidence does not allow for that.
BS!
Yes I can use declarative language, as I know the evidence. What you suggest is not possible within the known evidence.
So like I said; Stop with the absurdities.
Citation?
Maggie is reasonable and she thinks it would be reasonable for M to think Z was going for a weapon.
I rest my case.:mrgreen:
You are all over the page and you're not making any sense
Listen and pay attention.....The relevant time for Z's self-defense claim is when he shot M, after being punched. Not that Z followed, profiled or giving a ****ing explanation to M before.
I think that's reasonable too. But I also believe that GZ thought TM might have a weapon as well.
From when M tried to speak to him the FIRST time?
And if Z thought M had a weapon, why is he following him into the darkness?
And doesn't that make it MORE likely he went for his gun when M suddenly appeared out of the darkness and not his phone as he claims?
No you listen, if Z went for his gun at the outset he has no right to shoot M, as M was legally defending himself.
Screaming help and still trying to get your gun isn't withdrawing.
Is there hard evidence? No.
Would the above scenario negate Zs self defense claim in FL? Yes it would.
™ approached yelling and in a hurried manner.
He came out of hiding to do it. (He was up close to the Homes and not on the sidewalk.)
And when he arrived upon Zimmerman, immediately struck him.
That is an attack.
He was in the progress of an attack on a "Creepy Ass Cracker". He didn't care, let alone see, what Zimmerman was reaching for.
To justify M's use of force against Z, Mister M had to reasonably believe he was in danger of an imminent physical attack by Z.
This crap about Z going for his gun, phone or crotch is meaningless because M can't just have been unsure what Z was up to
You have no evidence of that from the prosecution or any eyewitness as to Z provoking the use of force by M against him.
Maggie and Josie now.
If they were both scared of each other...
1. TM could've just walked to his house.
2. GZ could've just stayed in his vehicle.
Neither one did the thing that could've prevented this. You cannot say that GZ getting out of his vehicle is the reason TM is dead because another reason is that TM didn't just go home.
That is the evidence.And Z goes for his PHONE.
Sure he did.
M has Zs prior behavior and the fact this was the SECOND time he had tried to speak to Z about what he was up to.
Not JUST going for his waist.
Maggie and Josie now.
Your position is fading fast.
What?
There is much certainty that there was no way it was reasonable for M to assume Z was going for a weapon and not his phone from some.
You and maggie said it wasn't unreasonable.
The "reasonable person" standard is just that, and no one can say you and Maggie aren't reasonable.
Sorry if I am out of line to cite you.
I am somewhat confused. Didn't YOU state repeatedly that there was no evidence to substantiate your supposition? If so how would your position be 'brilliant' enough to begin to fade?
There is much certainty that there was no way it was reasonable for M to assume Z was going for a weapon and not his phone from some.
You and maggie said it wasn't unreasonable.
The "reasonable person" standard is just that, and no one can say you and Maggie aren't reasonable.
Sorry if I am out of line to cite you.
Going for his phone or his weapon doesn't change my opinion of what the verdict should be.
That is not the reasonable man standard.The "reasonable person" standard is just that, and no one can say you and Maggie aren't reasonable.
Just thought I'd check in with you on this. Yes, I most certainly think that TM could have been afraid of GZ -- and when he reached for his phone? He might have (legitimately) thought he was going for a weapon. I might have thought the same had I been walking in my neighborhood at night and saw someone following me. If I KNEW that TM circled around and confronted GZ, I'd still feel exactly the same way. That TM was the aggressor. But I don't know that. He could have been acting in what he perceived as self-defense. Therein lies the rub.
So I'm ambivalent -- which is why I think the jury is probably going to try really hard to find him guilty of something. I've thought since early on that TM may have thought GZ was reaching for a weapon when he went for his phone. That's why I've called it a tragedy of epic proportion.
You don't punish folks who have to act in self-defense. That is ridiculous.Just a clear message that HE ****ed up and his actions resulted in a young mans death.
It kinda makes me crazy that so many lionize Z. He's no hero.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?