Second degree murder

Damocles said:
Had he actually confronted him before walking away I may agree with you. But according to the statements he was returning after a fruitless search. No confrontation had happened at that point. If Martin had come up behind him as was reported then that portion of the confrontation was not begun by Zimmerman, nor was it defense at that point.
Click to expand...

The girlfriends statement was that Zimmerman confronted Martin. She was on the phone with Trayvon and heard Zimmerman ask him what he was doing, I do believe it is what I read. The police varified that she was on the phone with him before the shooting.
 
Rana said:
The girlfriends statement was that Zimmerman confronted Martin. She was on the phone with Trayvon and heard Zimmerman ask him what he was doing, I do believe it is what I read. The police varified that she was on the phone with him before the shooting.
Click to expand...

From what I read she reported that Trayvon approached him saying something like "is there a problem", and the answer was "what are you doing here"...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Total nonsense.

When you confront someone you don't just get to walk away and expect the other to just do the same.

If Martin feared for his life, he has just as much right to defend himself from the person who followed and then approached him on a dark street.
Click to expand...

Especially if Zimmerman didn't identify himself which he didn't if the girlfriend of Trayvon is to be believed.
 
Derp Derp said:
Well fine but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? As I've said. There are only two facts that we are certain of. Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and he Shot and killed Trayvon. That Zimmerman may have walked away from the initial confrontation and may have been confronted later by Trayvon, does not change those two facts. Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and then shot and killed him.
Click to expand...

con·front/kənˈfrənt/
Verb:

Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.
Face up to and deal with (a problem or difficult situation).

Now please dearest Mutt... tell us how Zimmerman 'confronted' Martin again.

You are joke. As I stated, you are making shit up to try and support your absurd claim.
 
Damocles said:
Had he actually confronted him before walking away I may agree with you. But according to the statements he was returning after a fruitless search. No confrontation had happened at that point. If Martin had come up behind him as was reported then that portion of the confrontation was not begun by Zimmerman, nor was it defense at that point.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman was returning to his car after following and then confronting Martin.

A person cannot claim self defense if they instigate a confrontation and then walk away.


http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No...the discussion is regarding the 2nd degree murder charge facing Zimmerman...Y-O-U were "discussing" profiling.

You keep trying to divert the thread by diverting the topic of dicussion to "profiling."
Click to expand...

Again, the above is pure nonsense. It was Onceler that first brought up profiling, then Cawacko asked him a question on it, then I entered the discussion on it, then others joined in on discussing profiling. It is nothing short of absurd to pretend that I am trying to divert the topic.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Zimmerman was returning to his car after following and then confronting Martin.

A person cannot claim self defense if they instigate a confrontation and then walk away.


http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) 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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, according to the statements I have read Zimmerman was returning after failing to find Trayvon. That is not a confrontation by any of the definitions. He failed at confronting Trayvon, if the statements are accurate.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Okay...so you are saying that on a dark street at night, following someone wouldn't appear "confrontational" to the person being followed.

It's also hysterical how you feel you can lecture others for having "no idea how long Zimmerman was following him" when you don't know either.

Looks like we found another "do as I say and not as I do" Rightie.
Click to expand...

Yet Mutt's claim is that it is 'undisputed' that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. That is my point, that it most certainly is not undisputed. In reality it is the opposite, very heavily disputed.
 
Superfreak said:
Yet Mutt's claim is that it is 'undisputed' that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. That is my point, that it most certainly is not undisputed. In reality it is the opposite, very heavily disputed.
Click to expand...

It is the central question. As well as who escalated to physical rather than vocal confrontation. Those two questions are what the entire case will be about.

I really hope Zimmerman doesn't plea down and lets it go to trial, solely for curiosity's sake I'd like to hear the evidence and see testimony. I'm tired of speculating based on written statements.
 
Got away from the verbal sparring for a while and something became very clear.
I think Zimmermans lawyer is going to have a cakewalk with this.

When the court orders Martins parents to release the phone records, for that night, I believe that it's going to show that Martin was the one who initiated the confrontation; after Zimmerman was walking back to his car.
BALL ONE

The injuries are going to support Zimmermans assertion that he was the one that was attacked.
BALL TWO

That because of the previous two situations, that Zimmerman was in fear of his life.
BALL THREE

That the forensics are going to show that Martin was shot from a very close range and in an upward direction.
BALL FOUR

ZIMMERMAN WALKS
Because the Lawyer doesn't have to prove anything past this.

All the rest of the complaining and wanting this and/or that are moot points.
 
I belive Zimmerman may be found not guilty under the law, I personally disagree with the law because of its focus on what the user of deadly force "subjectivly belives".

Almost anyone who kills someone can say, "I belived he was about to kill me!"
 
Jarod said:
I belive Zimmerman may be found not guilty under the law, I personally disagree with the law because of its focus on what the user of deadly force "subjectivly belives".

Almost anyone who kills someone can say, "I belived he was about to kill me!"
Click to expand...

I believe that there is a measure of "reasonable" in there as well. You'd have to convince people that you had actual reason to believe your life was in danger.
 
I should put in my signature that none of my statements here mean I have come to a conclusion. I stated at the beginning that he should have been held until the investigation was complete, that there was enough evidence to hold him, and that he deserved a fair trial. What I see now is an almost certainty, oddly political, on one "side" of things, a bunch of others saying, "let's wait for the evidence", and then an oddly politicized opinion on the other side as well.

I am absolutely not certain of what happened that night, I just don't have enough evidence to make a determination. Other than this one: I don't think this guy can get a fair trial right now in that venue.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that there is a measure of "reasonable" in there as well. You'd have to convince people that you had actual reason to believe your life was in danger.
Click to expand...

But the standard is the person who killed so, was it reasonable for a person suffering from a severe anxiety disorder to belive that his wife, who he just had a normal argument with, to belive that wife was about to kill him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top