The trial is over... Guilty or not guilty?

[Tucker Case]

So police officers are not reasonably cautious and prudent?

No, their job is to do that which is well beyond what a reasonably cautious and prudent person would do.

 

[Tucker Case]

Im sorry, but Martin's attempt to obtain a firearm after saying, "Your gonna die tonight" constitute a lethal threat against his life.

Who relayed that quote?

 

[shrubnose]

For some reason, this post made me smile. Props for that.

If I was on the jury I would be voting guilty, because that's the way that I see it.

Naturally I believe that the jury will return a verdict of guilty, and Mr. Zimmerman will end up at the Gray Bar Hotel for a while.

I hope that he learns a few thing there.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see how it turns out, but I will bet that Zimmerman never goes to work as a law-enforcement officer anywhere in the USA.

 

[Tucker Case]

He was pinned down, screaming for help (and receiving no help), getting his face beat in, and told "Your going to die tonight", and the person doing this was attempting to acquire his firearm.

What other options at that point were available and reasonable for him?

Martin attempting to disarm Zimmerman is evidence that Martin was justified in his use of lethal force. To my knowledge, the only witness to Martin saying "you're going to die tonight" was the guy who killed him. Not exactly a reliable witness, IMO.

 

[Grim17]

I should have added more...

"If GZ was not engaged in unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he resonably believed that it was nessisary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcable felony. In considering the issue of self defense, you can take into account the reletive physical abilities and capabilities of both GZ and TM. In your consideration of the issue of self defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether GZ was justified in the use of deadly force, you must find GZ not guilty..."​

 

[Caine]

Unlike Zimmerman (who initially provoked the use of force against him),

Once you can prove he initially provoked the use of force against him..... I'll be waiting for that one.

Martin had a right to stand his ground.

From what? Being observed?

But also, the point where Martin punched Zimmerman is the point where the reasonable threat of imminent harm was made.

Says who? What evidence presented in court proved this?

Zimmerman reached into his coat (according to Zimmerman he was reaching for his phone, but martin, presumably, could not read Zimmerman's mind on this). It's reasonable to assume that the person following you is reaching for a weapon at that point, especially if there was any chance of Martin seeing Zimmerman's weapon prior to that.

You can assume all you want.... but there is that little thing called doubt.

DOUBT does not work in favor of the prosecution... ever.

It comes down to whom was justified in their use of force. I believe the evidence indicated that Martin was justified in the use of deadly force, especially if Zimmerman was telling the truth about Martin attempting to disarm him.

You like to use only the Zimmerman quotes that support your unproven theory, but ignore Zimmerman stating Martin told him, "Your going to die tonight".

Telling someone they are going to die is NOT what a reasonable person defending themselves should EVER do, especially if they started the physical altercation.

 

[Grim17]

Martin attempting to disarm Zimmerman is evidence that Martin was justified in his use of lethal force. To my knowledge, the only witness to Martin saying "you're going to die tonight" was the guy who killed him. Not exactly a reliable witness, IMO.

1. There is no evidence to support that allegation.
2. Trayvon Martin is not on trial, George Zimmerman is.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

He was pinned down, screaming for help (and receiving no help), getting his face beat in, and told "Your going to die tonight", and the person doing this was attempting to acquire his firearm.

What other options at that point were available and reasonable for him?

that part is another thing that does not add up.

from what i heard from the testimony Trayvon was at one-point A) beating up Zimmerman, B) trying to Smother him, C) trying to pin down George zimmermans arms, and D) fighting over the gun. Unless you have multiple arms, there is no way that Trayvon Martin was doing all the aftformentioned things to Zimmerman at the same time.

 

[Caine]

there are parts of zimerrmans story that cast suspicion on his claim. Mainly of course why did he need to get out of his car and follow Trayvon martin. following someone is not a crime, i know, but by following Trayvon martin, Zimmerman was starting the chain of events that led To Trayvon martins death.

And yet if Martin has not assaulted Zimmerman, none of this would have happened.

With your logic, we can blame Trayvon for getting suspended from school, or Zimmerman needing to go to Target to get items for making lunches for the week.

In all seriousness.... the only incident in the "chain of events" that TRULY led to death is Martin's attack on Zimmerman. Everything else is just trying to look at the case in whatever way reflects the worst light on Zimmerman as possible.

 

[Tucker Case]

Self defense can be used even by the person who started the fight. It hinges on whether or not a reasonable person would believe that he would be killed or greatly injured at a given point. So it depends on whether or not you think someone sitting on you, beating on you, and bashing your head on the cement falls into that category.

What happens if a reasonable person would think that you continue to be a lethal threat to them? Like, say, you've been following them, they tried to flee form you, you continue to follow, you make it look as though you are reaching for a weapon, they defend themselves and discover you DO have a weapon.

What happens then? Zimmerman's behavior would make any reaosnable perosn believe that they were in danger of being killed. Martin was employing a reasonable method of trying to escape that harm by trying to disarm Zimmerman.

 

[Caine]

Hmmm...who alleged that?

Funny, none of the witnesses, including W6 heard that.

Zimmerman claimed it.

If we are using Zimmerman's statement that he reached for his cell phone to claim that Martin was reasonable in believing Zimmerman was reaching for a gun and thus was standing his ground.....

We can't pick and choose which parts of Zimmerman's statement unsupported by witnesses to use to make our point now can we?

 

[Grim17]

I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not justified in his use of deadly force. :shrug: It's more than just fear of great bodily harm.

Sorry, but you are ignoring the judges instructions and Florida law... I sure hope the jury doesn't think that the law is irrelevant like you do.

 

[Tucker Case]

And yet if Martin has not assaulted Zimmerman, none of this would have happened.

and if Zimmerman had not behaved in a threatening fashion toward Martin, none of this could have happened. Zimmerman initiated the violence and remained a lethal threat to martin throughout the entire event. Martin was justified in the use of lethal force against Zimmerman, by the exact same standards by which Zimmerman is being judged.

 

[Caine]

Martin attempting to disarm Zimmerman is evidence that Martin was justified in his use of lethal force. To my knowledge, the only witness to Martin saying "you're going to die tonight" was the guy who killed him. Not exactly a reliable witness, IMO.

And yet....

What witness saw Zimmerman go for his cell phone after they made contact?????


It appears you are picking and choosing which parts of Zimmerman's statement to use in your theory.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

And yet if Martin has not assaulted Zimmerman, none of this would have happened.

With your logic, we can blame Trayvon for getting suspended from school, or Zimmerman needing to go to Target to get items for making lunches for the week.

In all seriousness.... the only incident in the "chain of events" that TRULY led to death is Martin's attack on Zimmerman. Everything else is just trying to look at the case in whatever way reflects the worst light on Zimmerman as possible.

Trayvon martin is not on trial for his sins or crimes, it is George Zimmermans.

If ZImmerman had stayed in his car and had just let Trayvon Martin walk away, this story would not have happened the way it did.

 

[Caine]

that part is another thing that does not add up.

from what i heard from the testimony Trayvon was at one-point A) beating up Zimmerman, B) trying to Smother him, C) trying to pin down George zimmermans arms, and D) fighting over the gun. Unless you have multiple arms, there is no way that Trayvon Martin was doing all the aftformentioned things to Zimmerman at the same time.

You are aware that things in a fight don't ALL happen in the same instance.

Within a minute, all of those things could have happened in a chain of events that provided arms were available for all of those actions.

 

[Tucker Case]

Sorry, but you are ignoring the judges instructions and Florida law... I sure hope the jury doesn't think that the law is irrelevant like you do.

Nonsense. I'm looking at the instructions rendered by the judge in the way the judge told the jury to do it by including the circumstances that Zimmerman found himself in.

 

[Josie]

I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not justified in his use of deadly force. :shrug: It's more than just fear of great bodily harm.

He had to have feared great bodily harm to be justified. Period. He didn't even have to have a scratch on him to be justified. Simply - a fear of being harmed greatly.

 

[Caine]

What happens if a reasonable person would think that you continue to be a lethal threat to them? Like, say, you've been following them, they tried to flee form you, you continue to follow, you make it look as though you are reaching for a weapon, they defend themselves and discover you DO have a weapon.

What happens then? Zimmerman's behavior would make any reaosnable perosn believe that they were in danger of being killed. Martin was employing a reasonable method of trying to escape that harm by trying to disarm Zimmerman.

All that is blown out of the water because it was clear Martin stayed behind to confront Zimmerman.

That walk doesn't take 4 minutes.

 

[Caine]

and if Zimmerman had not behaved in a threatening fashion toward Martin, none of this could have happened. Zimmerman initiated the violence and remained a lethal threat to martin throughout the entire event. Martin was justified in the use of lethal force against Zimmerman, by the exact same standards by which Zimmerman is being judged.

Following someone is an offense punishable by death?

 

[Josie]

I gotta say ..... if you would've asked me last year how this trial would've turned out, I would have predicted the exact opposite of this poll's results. It's funny how the media manipulates you, eh?

 

[Tettsuo]

Basic question... when do you stop believing Zimmerman's narrative? I stopped when he claimed he wasn't following Trayvon and couldn't remember the name of the street in a neighborhood with 3 streets where he lived for 4 years.

 

[Grim17]

He had to have feared great bodily harm to be justified. Period. He didn't even have to have a scratch on him to be justified. Simply - a fear of being harmed greatly.

And Tucker already agreed that he did likely believe that, so.....

 

[Buck Ewer]

I believe Zimmy is guilty of murder and that he planned a stand your ground defense before he got out of his car.
He will found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Caine]

Trayvon martin is not on trial for his sins or crimes, it is George Zimmermans.

If ZImmerman had stayed in his car and had just let Trayvon Martin walk away, this story would not have happened the way it did.

This is a self defense case....

Unless there was a criminal act committed by George Zimmerman against Martin, none of what he SHOULD have done matters.


Poor decisions that are not criminal ones are not cause for a life sentence.