Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defending George Zimmerman with Facts
Opposingviews ^ | 5 April, 2012 | LegalBoom Not For Profit INC

Posted on 04/10/2012 6:48:34 AM PDT by marktwain

A slew of questions have been raised in this investigation and calls for justice have been heard from all corners of our country. What's important is that we the citizens have the proper information to draw a conclusion about what actually happened that night. Everything else is pure speculation. I will attempt to do just that here with you, step by step.

The night started with a 911 call from Mr. Zimmerman about a suspicious looking person walking through the neighborhood. Mr. Martin was a guest in the neighborhood and was difficult to identify by familiarity. The 911 dispatcher asked for identifying characteristics of Mr. Martin to which Mr. Zimmerman replied a black male in jeans with a hooded sweat shirt. This brings us to our first question.

Was Mr. Zimmerman's identification of Mr. Martin as a black male an indication of pre-meditation in a hate crime, or otherwise a pre disposition to illustrate facts in any other matter then straight forwardly? It would stand to reason that the physical characteristics played little into how Mr. Zimmerman made his conclusion to involve the police. It was likely linked to the hyperbole surrounding the recent crime in the area and the zealotry Mr. Zimmerman experienced as the watch Captain.

As a result race was a non issue it was the relation to a body, be it white or black in the neighborhood "looking suspicious”. What's suspicious? That’s merely up to perception. Then could it have been a "Hate crime"? A hate crime is defined as such- "In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, gender identity, social status or political affiliation."

Probably not considering the race of Mr. Martin was only called into question by the 911 operator and not freely given by Mr. Zimmerman; furthermore Mr. Zimmerman concluded "I think he's black". That degree of uncertainty can call into question any intent Mr. Zimmerman may or may not have had prior to engaging Mr. Martin. From there Mr. Zimmerman goes on to say "He's checking me out" "He's putting his hand in his waist band" "he's got something in his hand; I don't know what his deal is".

I think this is instrumental in fueling Mr. Zimmerman’s mindset. That coupled with the apparent frustration of "These assholes, they always get away". The next question is- Why did Mr. Zimmerman pursue Mr. Martin and confront him? And was it considered stalking? After these events you can hear on the recording Mr. Zimmerman exiting his vehicle. He goes on to say "He's running" you then begin to hear wind and heavy breathing as if a pursuit has been initiated. The 911 operator asks "Are you following him"? To which Mr. Zimmerman replies "Yes" the operator says "Ok we don't need you to do that". There are two very important points to take away from this as there seems to be some confusion here.

First, the "Command" was merely a suggestion as phrased by the 911 operator. Secondly the suggestion as it were was from a telecommunications operator NOT a police officer with any authority over what Mr. Zimmerman does. Mr. Zimmerman replied to the operator after the suggestion to desist was given "ok". The sound of wind and heavy breathing then ended. He then went over more details with the operator for approximately one minute and forty five seconds while returning to his truck. He states when the operator asks him for his home address "I don't want to give that out I don't know where this guy is".

The call is ended shortly afterward when Mr. Zimmerman agrees to meet the responding officer at his truck. In short this unequivocally proves he ended the pursuit as suggested by the operator, contrary to what the media has been reporting. As far as the stalking theory is concerned, Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty in his twenty second pursuit of Mr. Martin. Language in F.S 784.048 provides the legal definition of stalking.  (2)Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Now these are all interesting points because it defines stalking as “Malicious, repeatedly and with harassment”. Mr. Zimmerman’s short winded pursuit of Mr. Martin was not malicious in intent, was not a repeated act and was not harassment as defined in Florida statute. Harassment is defined as such-  (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. Now what is considered as a course of conduct is a little ambiguous in Florida’s definition however is clearer in Federal language.  

Florida statute- (b)“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

Federal law- (2) Course of conduct. - The term "course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. So that should serve to further clarify the intent of the legislature when creating stalking laws, and what conduct actually consists of in relation to the act of stalking. What happened after the 911 call is shrouded in controversy and mystery; however one conclusion can be drawn.

The police apprehended Mr. Zimmerman after the shooting and took him in for questioning. What was found afterward with both physical evidence, testimony from Mr. Zimmerman and from two separate witnesses was that it was self defense. The idea that this must be some vast conspiracy with the denizens of the neighborhood and Sandford PD is not only ridiculous but offensive to the integrity of the very men and women who protect us day in and day out. Another assertion drawn from the masses is that the Stand Your Ground Law is a "License to kill" This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Florida legislature has built language and provisions into this law to prevent it being used maliciously. Below is the exact verbiage as it is stated on the Florida legislature's website. "776.013 (3) 

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." This is quite clear that the defendant must "Reasonably" believe that they must use deadly force if they believe such force is the only way to prevent great bodily harm or death to themselves." That being said I have a question for you. If someone assaulted you from behind, punched you in the face, then took you to the ground and pummeled your head repeatedly into a sidewalk would you reasonably believe that was "Imminent death or great bodily harm"?

If so would you be willing to do what it took to stop the commission of that crime and protect yourself with whatever means you had available to you? That is at the very core of the war being waged between both sides. Now a lot of the opponents to the Zimmerman defense story have said that because Mr. Zimmerman "Pursued and stalked" Mr. Martin that Mr. Martin then had the right to stand his ground and Mr. Zimmerman had then forfeited his right to self defense because he was the aggressor and that it was no longer a "Stand your ground" issue. Firstly I would like to quash the idea that we can take "Stand your ground" as literally as it has been portrayed.

The law has adopted the moniker "Stand your ground" because of the verbiage within it and the precedent it set. The true name if any can be given to this law is simply a number F.S 776.013 here I will show you the verbiage in its entirety from the legislature website. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." "(3) From what is within that law it could be argued that whether a chase had occurred or not that Zimmerman had the right to be in any public place and so could stand his ground no matter where he was. Your personal space moves with you, and with it the area under which you can "Stand your ground". You will only be standing your ground when the situation comes to a halt and a assault occurs. That seems to be quite contradictory and has a gaping hole in it as it stands. That is why the legislature built in this beautiful provision for the justifiable use of force, which I believe fits in perfectly with this situation.

Arguments have been made that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation by following him which was of course disproven by the un- redacted version of the 911 tape that was not released initially to the media. Now! Even if it wasn't, and we were still under the assumption that Zimmerman was the aggressor this law shows how one could still fall under the stand your ground law legally. Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: "776.041 Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (2) 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;" (a) If Martin assaulted Zimmerman after any pursuit was made Zimmerman could still use deadly force to end any assault that made him "Reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm". Right wrong or indifferent this is the law and its intent was to protect everyone legally so that just because you’re a hot head you wouldn’t have to die for it in fear of what would legally happen to you if you defended yourself. The next and to me the most disgusting portion of this debacle is the accusation that the police department "Failed" to arrest Zimmerman and that the investigation was botched. Here is a statute that will 100% remove any doubt of the conduct of the police department and their judgment that night.

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant." 

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) "776.032 With the evidence both physical and witness testimony it was proven that Zimmerman acted in self defense and so the Police had no probable cause to make the arrest. How can people cry for justice and in the same breath in ignorance of the law ask for circumvention in the law? Justice is defined as a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics; justice is the act of being just and/or fair. There is nothing Rational about jumping to conclusions with sensational headlines, asking for justice via breaking a well founded law and asking for a punishment that is not warranted.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; fl; martin; standyourground; trayvonmartin; zimmerman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Interesting analysis, if slightly dated.
1 posted on 04/10/2012 6:48:49 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Seems to fit the circumstances and an excellent course for the defense to take if this gets to trial.

If it does not get to trial, I hope everyone is at a personal defcon2 status.


2 posted on 04/10/2012 7:09:13 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I will add something it doesn’t address:

It is argued that Zimmerman chased down and caught Martin, who was running to his father’s place. But if you look at the timeline, Martin could have walked to his father’s house from Zimmerman twice after Zimmerman called the police. So why was he still so close to Zimmerman’s truck when he died.

I think the actual timeline supports that he left and hid, and when Zimmerman turned around he attacked him from behind, just as Zimmerman says.


3 posted on 04/10/2012 7:12:53 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There’s a lot of stuff about the timing of the 911 call that I didn’t know before and the press appears to have gone out of its way to conceal. Now the only question is the exact events that occurred when Martin approached Zimmerman near the end since it is clear the Zimmerman gave up his pursuit so Martin had to double back on him. Did Martin sucker punch Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman draw on Martin when he first saw him so Martin was defending himself? Or did something in between occur? I really don’t know and the only witness is Zimmerman.


4 posted on 04/10/2012 7:20:51 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If the facts prove Zimmermann was not at fault, then he should seek damages from NBC, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.


5 posted on 04/10/2012 7:21:35 AM PDT by BeckB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Analysis does not matter.
Logic does not matter.
Rationality does not matter.
Facts do not matter.
Jurisprudence does not matter.

Only what the Bolshevik mob “feels” matters.

They “feel” that a little boy was murdered in cold blood by a big, evyl “White-Hispanic” man (whatever that is) with a Jew-sounding name carrying an evyl (gasp!) gun.

Now they “feel” that the evyl White-Hispanic man (whatever that is) with the Jew-sounding name who was carrying an evyl (gasp!) gun must be brought to “justice”, whatever it is they “feel” that is.


6 posted on 04/10/2012 7:22:17 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; maggief; Cboldt; kristinn

Interesting discussion from the FL law point of view.


7 posted on 04/10/2012 7:23:38 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

“Analysis does not matter.
Logic does not matter.
Rationality does not matter.
Facts do not matter.
Jurisprudence does not matter.

Only what the Bolshevik mob “feels” matters.”

The MSNBC Klux Klan Lynch Mob wants BLOOD, even after ABC, CNN, and NBC admitting they LIED to them.

And you WONDER how a man like Barack Obama could be elected President?


8 posted on 04/10/2012 7:28:10 AM PDT by tcrlaf (Election 2012: THE RAPTURE OF THE DEMOCRATS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BeckB

Yes.

And “damages” should be easily determined. Not the amount, but the fact that his life is threatened because of direct lies about the facts by both NBC and ABC, and the race pimps.


9 posted on 04/10/2012 7:28:43 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If someone assaulted you from behind, punched you in the face, then took you to the ground and pummeled your head repeatedly into a sidewalk would you reasonably believe that was "Imminent death or great bodily harm"?

This is not "a fact." It is the story told by Mr. Zimmerman. It is a contention, not a fact.

It is a fact there was a fight. How that fight started we do not know. It is likely, based on witness testimony, that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he fired and was indeed in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at that point.

But there are a number of things Zimmerman could have done to precipitate the fight, constituting assault, and therefore preventing him from claiming self defense.

Since nobody (alive) but Zimmerman is available to testify about what started the fight, we will never know what happened.

There is probably no evidence to contradict Mr. Zimmerman's testimony. This does not prove he is telling the truth, it only proves we can't prove he is lying.

If Martin were alive and Zimmerman dead, we would probably be in a similar situation. Martin would claim Zimmerman attacked him, armed, and he defended himself. We would probably be unable to prove otherwise.

10 posted on 04/10/2012 7:30:12 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
“I think the actual timeline supports that he left and hid, and when Zimmerman turned around he attacked him from behind, just as Zimmerman says.”

He likely ran to hide drugs, and/or burglary tools.

11 posted on 04/10/2012 7:34:48 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
After reading a gazillion articles, including diagrammed maps of the events I come to one conclusion:
Trayvon felt 'dissed' by Zimmerman's initial questioning. And after going back to daddy's GF Townhouse (per a published diagrammed map of events) his anger at being 'dissed' built up and Trayvon went back to Zimmerman mad as hell, confronted him on the sidewalk near Zimmerman's car then cold-cocked him knocking him to the ground. When 'Tray' had Zimmerman on the ground he started banging his head on the sidewalk/ground plus punching his face.

The fight itself just happened to be in front of the window of witness 'John', who confirmed Zimmerman's story of the beating to the PD.

Ergo, the shooting was justified, or as some call it 'righteous'. One or two more head whacks to the ground could have 'done it'. Death or permanent Brain Damage and life as a vegetable for Zimmerman.

And Trayvon's own MySpace and Twitter account writing sure shot a hole in the story of him being an angelic little kid. He was a 17yo gangsta with a dirty ghetto mouth who would for sure take offense to being 'dissed'.

Case closed.

12 posted on 04/10/2012 7:42:43 AM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
“It is a fact there was a fight.”

Now you are making up ‘facts’.

There was no evidence of a fight, Martin didn't have a mark on him other than the gunshot wound.

It is a fact that a beating took place, and all the evidence and witnesses to that show it was one sided and all directed at Zimmerman.

Everything in the case supports Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

13 posted on 04/10/2012 7:46:48 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"It is likely, based on witness testimony, that Zimmerman was losing the fight when he fired and was indeed in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at that point."

There is no indication that Zimmerman was even returning blows, thus not "losing" a "fight".

If "John" and the mortician who tended to Martin's body are to believed, Zimmerman basically was attacked and did nothing more than fended off blows waiting for someone to come and help. At some point the gun discharged. The fact that there was not a round in the chamber when the police retrieved the weapon, suggests some obstruction preventing the gun to cycle normally. Typical of a close quarters struggle.

14 posted on 04/10/2012 7:54:48 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

A fight does not have to be evenly matched to be a fight.


15 posted on 04/10/2012 7:55:43 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
And if it goes to trial, and Z is acquitted... go to defcon 4, maybe?

In my opinion the authorities, are weighing the question, "Is it better to placate the racists with a trial?"... "but if the trial does not produce the "desired results", how bad will that be, compared to deciding a no trial backlash based on overwhelming evidence of justifiable self defense"... damned if they do and damned if they don't...


16 posted on 04/10/2012 7:58:42 AM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
And if it goes to trial, and Z is acquitted... go to defcon 4, maybe?

In my opinion the authorities, are weighing the question, "Is it better to placate the racists with a trial?"... "but if the trial does not produce the "desired results", how bad will that be, compared to deciding a no trial backlash based on overwhelming evidence of justifiable self defense"... damned if they do and damned if they don't...


17 posted on 04/10/2012 7:58:58 AM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I would have said a “person” not “body” the way it turned out.


18 posted on 04/10/2012 8:00:48 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Perhaps so, but for there to be a fight more than one has to be involved in fighting.

A beating, on the other hand, can be one sided. All facts in the case point to that here.

19 posted on 04/10/2012 8:05:03 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Interesting and worth keeping.


20 posted on 04/10/2012 8:10:42 AM PDT by CitizenM (Obama studied our Constution out of hate for America, not out of love for our laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Talking with a friend of mine, he said something interesting.
He is connected to the local State Patrol.

In some places, 911 operators work under/have a commission from the local sheriff/state patrol.

SOMETIMES 911 warnings/direction DO CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW!

Just mentioning it because I don’t want fellow FReepers to automatically assume something a 911 operator says is “just a suggestion”. So people should check their local jurisdictions.


21 posted on 04/10/2012 8:19:58 AM PDT by djf (Obama - the "OJ verdict" of presidents!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

I may have to revise my terminology for a couple of fights I was in back in school. :)


22 posted on 04/10/2012 8:28:19 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

And always bring a gun to to a gunfight.


23 posted on 04/10/2012 8:29:24 AM PDT by wordsofearnest (Proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs it. C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Trayvon felt 'dissed' by Zimmerman's initial questioning

There was no "initial questioning." The two exchanged no words till very shortly before things got physical.

I see no reason we should respond to liberal pre-judgment of this case by doing the same in reverse.

24 posted on 04/10/2012 8:31:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

BTTT


25 posted on 04/10/2012 8:37:37 AM PDT by varon (The patriots stand watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Are you following him"? To which Mr. Zimmerman replies "Yes" the operator says "Ok we don't need you to do that". There are two very important points to take away from this as there seems to be some confusion here."

What makes it confusing is a few seconds before, the same operator tells Zimmerman (twice) "Just let us know if he does anything else". Kind of hard to do if you don't have eyes on the suspect. Zimmerman followed directions.

26 posted on 04/10/2012 8:43:04 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The night started with a 911 call from Mr. Zimmerman about a suspicious looking person walking through the neighborhood. Mr. Martin was a guest in the neighborhood and was difficult to identify by familiarity. The 911 dispatcher asked for identifying characteristics of Mr. Martin to which Mr. Zimmerman replied a black male in jeans with a hooded sweat shirt. This brings us to our first question.

I've only gotten to the first paragraph of "facts," and there are already 2 errors... good grief...

1)Zimmerman didn't call 911. He called the non-emergency police number.

2) Zimmerman did not volunteer that Trayvon was black. He was specifically asked if the guy was "white, black or Hispanic."

27 posted on 04/10/2012 8:57:05 AM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

[[What’s important is that we the citizens have the proper information]]

Whaqt world are you living in? That’s NOT what is important- the ONLY thing important in this case is whether you are black or white- IF you arwe black, then Martin was just an innocent lkittle child goign to the storwe to get skittles, and the big mean ‘white’ george zimmerman was out on pastrol hoping to hunt down innocent little black kids because he was swo racist-

The black community does NOT care abotu hte FACVTS- PERIOD! They and the media are determiend to make htis abotu ‘justice ofr trayvon’ despite the fact that zimmerman ONLY shot him as a last resort in an effort to save hisw own life as trasyvon went for his gun.

None of hte FACTS matter to hte black community- George zimmernman in their mind visciously hunterd down Trayvon like an animal, and shot him in cold blood DESPITE ALL the FACTS to the contrary- they want this to be abotu raqce, and by damn, that’s exactly what this IS goign to be about!


28 posted on 04/10/2012 9:16:57 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Accordign to hte witrnesses, there was no fight, there was however a criminal assault on zimmerman by a thug kid, and according to witnesses an attempt by martin at murder- bashing someone’s head into concrete is intent to murder. I fully expect we’ll be hearing al sharpton and the press come out and condemn trayvon for attempting to murder zimmerman, any day now-


29 posted on 04/10/2012 9:25:01 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
There was no evidence of a fight, Martin didn't have a mark on him other than the gunshot wound.

Who says? The undertaker? Or is the ME's report out?

Clearly, there was a fight. Over Zimmerman's gun. The fact that the spent round was still in the chamber indicates multiple hands were gripping it, preventing proper cycling and ejection of the cartridge.

30 posted on 04/10/2012 9:49:28 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Since nobody (alive) but Zimmerman is available to testify about what started the fight, we will never know what happened.

Actually, Trayvon's girlfriend DeeDee apparently did hear the beginning of the fight. There are some of her comments here

She said that Trayvon said: "What are you following me for?" to which Zimmerman replied: "What are you doing around here?" and then she surmised that the headset fell, attributing it to Zimmerman attacking Trayvon. As far as I know, she did not publicly report hearing anything else after the headset fell.

It would appear that was the time that the physical altercation started. Does it make sense that Zimmerman would attack Trayvon at this point, or that Trayvon would attack Zimmerman? Remember, Zimmerman had the police coming. Zimmerman reported that he went for his phone. Perhaps Trayvon thought he was going for a weapon, and decided to go on the offensive.

31 posted on 04/10/2012 9:51:24 AM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
It is argued that Zimmerman chased down and caught Martin, who was running to his father’s place.

Yeah, I've heard that one quite a bit. Ignored in the analysis is this question: How does a slightly pudgy middle-aged man chase down and assault a taller, wiry teenaged football player in the rain? Can't ever get an answer to that....

32 posted on 04/10/2012 9:55:19 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (The only flaw is that America doesn't recognize Cyber's omniscience. -- sergeantdave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

It only exposes the lunacy of their position. And they are completely blind to it. And they call you names if you even try to point it out.

And there are a LOT of them.


33 posted on 04/10/2012 9:58:01 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Trayvon felt 'dissed' by Zimmerman's initial questioning.

They only interacted once, not twice.

It appears Zimmerman took the police suggestion to drop his pursuit of Martin, had lost track of Martin, and was heading back to his truck when Martin accosted him, evidently royally pissed at having been 'profiled' and intent on messing up whitey.

34 posted on 04/10/2012 10:00:19 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Because Martin was black, Zimmerman was supposed to let him give him brain damage or kill him. That’s the Left’s argument. And teenagers can kill adults. It happens over and over.


35 posted on 04/10/2012 10:04:03 AM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
She said that Trayvon said: "What are you following me for?" to which Zimmerman replied: "What are you doing around here?" and then she surmised that the headset fell, attributing it to Zimmerman attacking Trayvon. As far as I know, she did not publicly report hearing anything else after the headset fell.

She surmised, did she? Obviously, Trayvon terminated the call. If the headset had merely fallen, she would have been able to hear quite a lot. The shouting and the gunshot are audible on at least one of the 911 calls, which were over phones a lot further removed from the site.

Hopefully, T-Mobile has exact call times. Cell carriers keep their computer clocks dead accurate.

36 posted on 04/10/2012 10:10:59 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mouton; Travis McGee; Squantos
Seems to fit the circumstances and an excellent course for the defense to take if this gets to trial.

If it does not get to trial, I hope everyone is at a personal defcon2 status.

Standing by at DEFCON 3 for now, with REDCON 3 set. If there's an arrest of Zimmerman, we'll go to REDCON 2.

Defense readiness conditions (DEFCONs) describe progressive alert postures primarily for use between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of unified commands. DEFCONs are graduated to match situations of varying military severity, and are numbered 5,4,3,2, and 1 as appropriate. DEFCONs are phased increases in combat readiness. In general terms, these are descriptions of DEFCONs:

DEFCON 5 Normal peacetime readiness
DEFCON 4 Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
DEFCON 3 Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness
DEFCON 1 Maximum force readiness.

37 posted on 04/10/2012 10:26:29 AM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect

If this goes to trial, it will be either an acquital or a hung jury...then the SHTF big time, just as you suggest. I’d be at personal defcon2 status regardless.


38 posted on 04/10/2012 10:26:29 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; All
She surmised, did she? Obviously, Trayvon terminated the call. If the headset had merely fallen, she would have been able to hear quite a lot. The shouting and the gunshot are audible on at least one of the 911 calls, which were over phones a lot further removed from the site. Hopefully, T-Mobile has exact call times. Cell carriers keep their computer clocks dead accurate.

You are correct. I find her testimony to be a bit suspect because she has not been identified and the Martin family attorney refuses to give her identity to anyone but federal investigators. Federal investigators from Eric Holder's justice department, who have already been on notice to give "his people" a pass.

I would very much like to be able to see and compare all the phone records for this case and compare the time lines. From what I can tell, there is at most a one minute gap where there are no phone records. It may be that the gap is entirely nonexistent.

39 posted on 04/10/2012 10:29:54 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
She surmised, did she? Obviously, Trayvon terminated the call. If the headset had merely fallen, she would have been able to hear quite a lot. The shouting and the gunshot are audible on at least one of the 911 calls, which were over phones a lot further removed from the site.

Yes, she surmised. Here is what she said from the previous link: "Then somebody pushed Trayvon, because the headset just fell." That's the end of her comments in the ABC interview. Now, whether or not she heard more, or if the phone broke, or Trayvon terminated the call, that's not public knowledge as far as I know. The police should have the exact time that the call ended, so they are in a position to question her if the call continued.

40 posted on 04/10/2012 10:45:57 AM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Her name is Dee Dee. ABC said they confirmed the call. Gave exact time it began and ended. Would like to see that time in direct comparison of GZ/dispatcher call.

Have always thought it peculiar that people would think GZ would use a racial slur to someone he could not see and had no idea what color THEIR skin is.

My take on the “Fn COLD” dispatcher’s comment was that the dispatcher was telling him to get out of the cold. ‘You don’t have to
DO THAT=get out in the weather.


41 posted on 04/10/2012 10:50:52 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
But there are a number of things Zimmerman could have done to precipitate the fight, constituting assault, and therefore preventing him from claiming self defense.

Not true. Instead of talking generally, let's go to the actual Florida law. Chapter 776 (Justifiable Use of Force) of Florida Statutes existed before passage of the Florida Stand Your Ground Act in 2005, but it's where the provisions of the SYGA were incorporated into existing Florida law.

The Stand Your Ground Act contemplated limited situations under which an aggressor could still use deadly force or force likely to result in great bodily harm, and be justified in doing so. Here's the link to the entire Chapter 776, but concentrate on Florida Statutes 776.041(2).

Even under common law, it's not accurate to say as a generalization that a party who commits assault can never claim self-defense. For example, under a standard application of common law, the assailant can stop the fight, achieve clear physical separation, and state clearly an intent to cease fighting. The assailant still has liability for the initial assault. However, if the other party continues fighting at that point, then the original assailant can practice and claim self-defense from that point forward.

Those elements are incorporated by statute in Florida Statutes 776.041(2)(b) - but allow the use of deadly force without retreat, which often is not permitted at common law without retreat.

42 posted on 04/10/2012 11:56:57 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Let assume, for purposes of discussion, that George pulled his gun on Trayvon without physical provocation.

If so, this constituted assault with a deadly weapon, and Trayvon would have been fully justified in defending himself with physical force. If he'd had a gun, he would have been justified in shooting his assailant. Since he didn't, he was fully justified in attending himself the best he could.

the assailant can stop the fight, achieve clear physical separation, and state clearly an intent to cease fighting.

Fairly obviously this point is not reached until the victim of assault gets control of the weapon.

I have no idea whatsoever if that is what happened, but it is certainly possible and does not conflict with any of the known facts, AFAIK.

43 posted on 04/10/2012 12:22:19 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I was responding to your statement in Post 10 that someone who commits assault cannot claim self-defense. That's not true under Florida statutory law (Florida Statutes 776.041(2)) or under common law, as I pointed out above. With all respect, the assumed set of facts don't have anything to do with the fact that a person can commit assault and then claim self-defense.

Fairly obviously this point is not reached until the victim of assault gets control of the weapon.

Umm. No. First, both parties could lost control of the weapon (it could drop from a bridge into the water below). Second, the original assailant could pull the trigger several times, with no shots fired, then holster the weapon and fight for several minutes before announcing he was giving up, and physically separating, and turning away. At that point, he's still liable for the original assault, but attacking him can be deemed another assault under the law. Or - he can even eject the magazine, announce that he has ceased fighting, physical separated, walk a mile away, and turn himself in at the police station. He's still liable for his assault. However, if you get into your car, drive, find him at the station, and strike him an iron pipe from behind, you can be liable for another assault. At some point, there's a separation of space and time such that one assault stops and a new one occurs. Get it?

I can make up these parades of horribles all day long, but let's get back to my original point. I was simply pointing out that, as a matter of law, your statement that someone who commits an assault cannot claim self-defense. At common law, there are facts under which an assailant can claim self-defense against what is deemed at law to be a subsequent, additional assault. And by some statutes - in Florida, notably, Florida Statutes 776.041 under the Stand Your Ground Act of 1995 - the person who is the initial assailant can use deadly force or force likely to cause great bodily harm against the party the assailant initially assaulted under certain circumstances.

I don't have to speculate about Zimmerman pulling a gun. I'm just correcting an unintentional misstatement of the law.

44 posted on 04/10/2012 5:13:02 PM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

You are quite correct. There are exceptional circumstances under which a perpetrator of an assault can claim self-defense, though he would presumably be liable for the original assault. There is at present no evidence I have seen that would indicate that was the case here.

However, when a lethal weapon is present and the two parties are struggling for possession of it, I believe it is perfectly obvious that each party has excellent reason to believe he will suffer death or great bodily harm if the other party gets control of it. The presence of a gun changes the dynamics of the situation.

I believe Zimmerman’s own testimony shows this. He says he had to shoot because he was afraid Trayvon would get hold of the gun. Had Trayvon been the survivor he would no doubt say he was trying to get control of a gun used in an assault upon him when it went off, killing his assailant.

IOW, if a gun is in play, neither party will, accurately, believe he can safely back away unless he has control of the weapon.


45 posted on 04/10/2012 7:15:48 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara
I do not believe a single word Trayvon's GF says. Not. One. Word.

You don't think she would say anything at all to make Trayvon into the innocent bystander the lamestream media has been portraying him as?

Unfortunately for her, the evidence doesn't support her lies.

46 posted on 04/10/2012 9:56:27 PM PDT by Houmatt (NObama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt; Aunt Polgara
About that conversation that was supposed to be going on between Trayvon and his GF. It was supposed to be going on with Trayvon using a bluetooth headset

There are several rules and observations one needs to be aware of regarding the presence of a bluetooth headset. As a routine user of such a device I can safely state the following:

  1. The most basic BT device has a range of 10m (roughly 30ft). So, unless it is turned off or out of range, it continues to function.
  2. The phone the BT headset is connected to does not have to be open if it is one of the clamshell design phones. So, you can carry your phone in a pocket and (in some cases) initiate a call, hold a conversation and then end the conversation without touching the phone.
  3. If something should happen to cause the connection to break between your BT and phone, the phone remains on and connected to the party you are conversing with.
  4. Since your phone can be out of sight, you can look a bit crazy talking to yourself. I imagine many of you have already come across someone with a headset you didn't see until you were up close and thought that person was acting a bit strange until then.
Which brings us to some discrepancies about the conversation Dee Dee says Trayvon and she were engaged in up to the moment Trayvon and GZ tangle.

If he is having a conversation with DD (as reported by DD) up to the moment the "scuffle" begins how come GZ did not hear it going on prior to the "scuffle"? Anyone who has used a cellphone headset, BT or not, knows you cannot whisper into the headset when outdoors. So you cannot be sneaky and use one.

What happened to this conversation? DD, I'm being followed by some guy. He looks white and kinda tubby. He's driving a pickup, license number ____. Yadda, yadda, yadda while facing the guy following him so that guy knows Trayvon is talking to someone and providing info about his follower.

I keep hearing questions about why he turned on GZ. Has anyone thought about what happens to a kid's head when his mom and dad are getting/have gotten a divorce and that kid is around one of them and that parent's new "significant other"? And dad has gone out with his girlfriend and he has to babysit for them. And kid wants to be with his own girlfriend for his own face time. And kid was suspended for a week from school and sent to be with his dad. Wanna bet that 17-year-old boy is getting hot? And then some whitey starts following him around, its starting to rain, and... ...what do you think is going to happen next?

I think she either heard everything that happened that night, because the phone was still on and sending every sound it picked up all around Trayvon to her phone until she hung up, or her conversation with Trayvon never took place. Those call records they show only indicated when the calls were received, not when they ended. For all we know they might have had a fight during the earlier call listed so he called her back and she hung up on him. On top of the stuff I listed earlier he could have been angry about that as well.

Like Houmatt, I cannot trust a thing she says about what happened that night.

47 posted on 04/11/2012 1:06:14 AM PDT by egfowler3 (Why do I even bother? No one's listening.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: egfowler3
Like Houmatt, I cannot trust a thing she says about what happened that night.

Yes, I agree with you that we probably don't have the whole story, but what she did say seems to me to support that Trayvon started the fight. If Z was planning on shooting Trayvon, why would he get so close? And since he knew the cops were coming, why would he initiate a brawl? Doesn't make sense to me. What makes more sense is that Trayvon felt dissed about being challenged for being there and sucker punched Z when Z went for his phone. Trayvon may have thought Z was going for a weapon. Tragic case all around.

Since we know that the media is fanning the flames, it's entirely possible that the police have a more complete statement from the GF than what the media showed, especially since the Martin attorney was present for the interview.

48 posted on 04/11/2012 5:16:30 AM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
IOW, if a gun is in play, neither party will, accurately, believe he can safely back away unless he has control of the weapon.

For those of you just tuning in, Mr. Logan and I are discussing the law in general and are not specifically discussing the Martin/Zimmerman case or facts, so I'd ask that you please don't think that either of us is assuming facts with respect to that case at this point.

SL: So, I'd agree with you if no outlier facts such as those I mentioned above are present, and two people are on the ground, in bodily contact, struggling with each other. You simply don't give up control of the weapon to the other party at that point because you don't know the other party's intent once they gain control of the weapon.

However, you come to the next point. What does the party who gets control of the weapon do with it once he/she gains control? Assuming no accidental discharge, you then have to look at the facts surrounding the decision to fire. Has the other party already done enough damage and evidenced willingness to continue doing enough additional damage that you're justified in firing immediately? Is the other party still continuing to batter you after you have possession of the gun (and is the other party justified in doing so precisely because you have possession of the gun and the other party doesn't know what you're going to do with the gun)? Have the facts leading to the altercation suggested a need to announce a 'stop, or I'll fire'? I think I could posit facts (as to how the altercation started, as to what went on in the altercation, and what was still going on) where the answer would be a fairly clear 'yes' and facts where the answer would be a 'h*ll, no.'

It's always factual. But back to the original point: In Florida, by statute and likely by common law, one who commits an assault can, in some situations, still claim self-defense, even up to the point of the use of deadly force. By common law, there are facts under which the initial assailant in a fight can claim the right of self-defense. A gun changes dynamics, but doesn't always eliminate the ability to claim self-defense at common law or by statute, even if the person who holds gun did commit an assault. And it's always the facts. What makes something reasonable or unreasonable, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, depends on the facts and a reasonable interpretation of them under the circumstances - not pontificating about them at leisure, but under the circumstances.

All of that is theoretical and is not based on the Martin/Zimmerman case.

49 posted on 04/11/2012 8:12:37 AM PDT by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

I agree.

BTW, I’m not an attorney and I’ve never played one on TV. So my understanding of law and particularly FL law is not that of an expert. I appreciate your careful instruction.


50 posted on 04/11/2012 8:19:39 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson