Posted on 07/01/2013 5:17:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 1st, is DAY #16 (of 4th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Last week the prosecution feebly presented the first series of witnesses against George Zimmerman. However, as most observers would note, the witnesses called by the state have so far been more beneficial for the Zimmerman Self-Defense position.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Did I really write “upholstered?” Blush. I’ve seen pink ones. But never an upholstered gun.
He didn’t break a law by opening a door and getting out of the vehicle.
But then that isn’t the point is it????? And you know it.
Getting out of the vehicle to look for a street sign IS FAR DIFFERENT than getting out of the vehicle with a visible weapon and following someone..especially when they have no idea who you are and you won’t tell them.
“Or your uncle owns a tuck and roll shop.”
Ouch. But I had it coming :)
>> I’d venture a bet that either of those watches is available at any city street corner for $15.
“Hey man, you wanna buy a watch? I KNOW you ain’t got no watch... ‘cause if you had a watch, you’d know it was night time, and night time ain’t NO time to be in dis neighborhood...”
Old Cheech & Chong thing
I think you better read what TWO REPUBLICANS who wrote the law have to say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-_n_1371171.html
I went back and found an article that said Tray was killed about 70 feet from his home. Wish I had a map and could see the reality of the situation.
sooner or later we might get to the Skittles on the doorstep
That link refers to the “stand your ground” law, which is explicitly NOT being relied upon in this trial.
You’re conflating “stand your ground” law with the doctrine of self defense in murder/manslaughter trials. They are two quite different things.
Please cite the evidence that GZ's weapon was visible
Conjecture-
Somehow, Z’s appearance and presence in the neighborhood and his ‘following’ of M was a threat to M’s masculinity. By circling around Z’s car, M was daring Z to step out of the car and most likely inviting Z to get into a verbal or physical altercation. M was asserting his dominance over Z. By not stepping out of the car when M challenged Z in this way, Z was to M confirming his submission to M. At this time, though Z did not know it for certain, M had committed himself to getting rid of Z or physically beating him if Z stayed around and M ever saw him again.
Z, not feeling restrained by M’s show of aggression and dominance, waited until M was gone, then got out of the car to try to find out where he was to answer the police question. Z may have considered himself reasonably safe from M because either M had continued to his destination, or because none of the burglaries involved violence, might have been a non-violent burglar casing his next victim’s home.
Later, M found Z walking around M’s neighborhood (’territory’), apparently having ignored M’s challenge. From M’s perspective Z was ‘guilty’ of ignoring M’s warning to Z and deserving of a beatdown as punishment.
Both M and Z were asserting their dominance. M chose to assert his dominance with unlawful deadly physical force and was lawfully met with deadly force by Z.
Men are programmed to be dominant by thousands of years of evolution. Women are programmed to be submissive by the same evolutionary forces. Ordinarily women might have a difficult time relating to the mindsets of two men meeting at night in the rain and challenging each other for dominance. However, several of the women in this particular jury are married, so they are IMHO more likely to be sympathetic towards Z if the evidence suggests that the scenario as described above is what actually transpired between Z and M on the evening of M’s death. The exception- the unmarried female high level manager- is likely to be fairly intelligent by reason of her occupation, and so may be more likely than average to be able to put herself in Z’s position and reason based on hypothetical scenarios such as the above conjecture. Therefore the jury might favor Z, even though it is all female.
C'mon. Has anyone said it was until Martin was beating GZ?
Why didn't St Skittles call the police if he felt he was being followed. St Skittles was talking to Rachel at the time. He had a cell phone.
It seemed more like 200’-300’ to me. One way or the other, it was what I would consider to be very close to M’s home. I used google maps to study the distances a couple of days ago, but I found it difficult to draw any significant conclusions one way or another from the results.
I understand that they are told not to identify themselves.
HOWEVER, that doesn’t lessen the fear that can be created to someone who is being followed by a man who has a gun.
You need to bone up on self defense if you think it doesn’t matter WHY he got out of that car
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/
You are so circumspect. But I respect your choice.
Defense made a point by demonstrating how easy it was to see the gun because GZ had a short jacket.
It’s possible Martin saw it.
I personally believe Martin was going all Gangsta on GZ BUT that may not be how the jury sees it..especially if they don’t know about his Gangsta background
-PJ
My mom has been married 4 times.
Every one of her husbands was left handed.
I’ve always wondered if their was a psychological point to that.
That info adds nothing to your statement I realize, lol.
I’ve always just waited for the opportunity to get that out if my system. It’s not a subject that comes up everyday. I saw my chance here and pounced. Sorry.
No I wasn't, and don't call me Shirley.
bfl
an interesting post. I, (female) am taking it under consideration, and thinking on it overnight.
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.