Is Zimmerman Guilty?

I'd love to put ,money on it with you.

 

One of the things that does bother me a lot, is that TM had no injuries.....(while i agree this shows that TM threw the first punch) it also shows me that Z did not try to fight back in any other way except using his gun....in order to use deadly force in claiming self defense don't you have to exhaust every other possibility before using said deadly force? (seriously asking) ZERO injuries to TM, not even the smallest of bruises on his face make me wonder if Z tried anything other than shooting him....and that in my opinion would not be ok. his hands were free enough to reach for his gun, why didn't he try to fight back first? as a reasonable person, (at least i think i am ha ha) if i was being beat up, i would be fighting back with everything i had in me.
I know that this doesn't prove anything, it's just my little observation...

And just one more little thing....TM was a teenager....and i remember clearly not being "reasonable" as a teenager. I think it is unfair to blame it all on him, as Z is the full grown adult in the situation. When i was 17...i was always on the defensive with my stepmother. She was constantly harassing me about everything so i constantly had the typical teenager attitude...so TM saying "you got a problem" or "what's your problem" IMHO doesn't say anything about his plan for an altercation....it simply says "im going to pretend to be a tough teenager, but you've actually freaked me the hell out by following me, so what the hell's your problem" lol.

 

Well, this is just a guess but...

That punch put him down, he was stunned and then hit his head. By that time Travon was on top of him, you can not swing up when a person is punching down on you, you can try and punch his sides because all your punches have to come from your side and around him,,follow?, try it. Imagine you are on your back, and this kid keeps swinging at you from up top [Like the witness said], how can you hit his face? You cant get through,,your pinned. Especially a young man, imagine how fast he was.
I would also think in that position Zimmerman was trying to block those blows,,right? Wouldn't you protect your face?

He then realizes there is nothing he can do, this kid wont stop,,AND,,,Zimmermans weight is working against him, not for him. So now he is blocking with one arm and reaching for his gun with the other. If that kid would have stopped this never would have happened,,he had no intentions of stopping, he was pissed.

 

You need solid facts, not an interpretation of what they ''think'' happened. You have not given me anything that would substantiate a win, following a person is not reckless, he did not run the kid down. In fact,,he called the Cops, that's reckless? Travon did not have a scratch on him,,that's reckless? If Travon was so scared why didn't he call the Cops?
So far,,,the only thing that points to him being ''scared'' is a witness, and I would question her competence,,and she's a friend. Not to mention the leading questions she was asked. What else do you have that says this guy was so scared? He could have went to the house,,nope!, could have called the cops,,nope! Could have ran,,,nope! Instead he decides to ask if the guy [that he is afraid of]..''Do you have a problem?''
That's a challenge, that's aggressive,,that's not scared.
What else do you have?

 

Sounds right, should be right, doubt that will happen. The fear of civil unrest is too huge on this...

 

It is an immunity hearing under what is now called SYG law because that is what the entire law is now commonly know as. All he has to do is assert it and he is granted a hearing before the judge. And at that hearing if the judge is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self defense the charges will be dropped with prejudice and his civil liability great decreased if not totally eliminated.

 

It's just a pretrial hearing to review (judge, defense attorney, prosecutor) a motion for immunity pursuant to the 1995 law. And it's unlikely to go anywhere, even though the prosecution kicked the door open to the motion by only charging Murder 2 and no other counts of any kind.

And as it happens, just prior to the Martin-shooting, one was heard and immunity was denied based on the judge ruling less force could have been used. That's a precendent that might well affect Zimmerman's chances which are slim to none of escaping going to trial, I'm guessing.

But maybe not, and for those who assume anyone shooting a black guy is innocent by default, you have time to hope.

 

What was reckless about anything he did that night. Everything he did was perfectly reasonable.

 

I really do not get this, this kid beats the hell out of a him and he's reckless?? So, the next time I'm in Florida and my Mother in Law's watch guy follows me because he does not recognize me I can POP him? that's it?

Gonna be a lot of old guys bleeding.......maybe it will start a trend...''Whack a Watchman''. Hey that's catchy I like it...

 

According to some if I am sitting on my front porch and a stranger walks by and since as is true my neighbor recently had a paint sprayer stolen out of his open garage I observe them and even walk out to the street to see which way they go they can then come back and assault me and threaten me with serious bodily harm or even death and I have no recourse, I have to just take it because I started it.

 

Someone with street smarts wouldn't allow a potential thief to know they're observing him.

Also...I'm not sure you know how hard it is to actually beat someone to death with your own hands. It ain't like the movies, but if you're a NON street-wise Barney Fife type like Zimmerman was, you may exhibit all manner of provocative behavior out of stupidity

 

Why? Where is the evidence of anything reckless he did that night?

What action?

Which does not allow for any lessening of the credibility of Zimmerman's statements. You can't discount merely on the basis that Martin is not here.

We don't know exactly how long it took. (*)He may have been walking slowly. He may have stopped or paused to listen. What does it matter?

Quote his exact words, I find claims of his exact words around here not so exact many times.

And the prosecution will first have to claim there is one, the investigators have not found any, and then prove it. What do you have to prove a "lack of credibility" that will dismiss his statements?

Sure it does and he did. It was Martin who went back and confronted Zimmerman.

We actually have the forensic evidence and witness statments. To what are we not privy?

 

Specious, you are not require to have "streetsmarts" but do tell my how I sit on my front porch so that no one can see if I look at them and when this requirement came to be.

The law government self-defense does not require someone to beat you to death with their own hands, it only requires you have a reasonable believe that you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. But yes there have been several actual murders cite here of people killing other people with only their hands. I'm sure you can pull some up on google quite easily and read for yourself.

Provocative behavior does not grant someone license to assault you.

 

That was not the intent of that post, it was making light of the fact that Travon may have felt threatened by a white following him, since African Americans are more likely to be victims of racial crimes than vice versa.

African American's generally don't hit whites for no reason

 

In other words the prosecution gets a conviction on their charge, they ''win'' the case they presented.

A hole is from the bullet he used to defend himself, if they decide he was justified. Under those circumstances what was he supposed to do? The law allows him this if he is in fear of high bodily injury, the man is heavy he could not get up and the kid would not stop swinging, what choice did he have? A witness saw this, it can not be denied.

Does not matter he is not around, ones actions can speak just as loud. If they are allowed to say how scared he was then the defense will still say, prove it, and prove it they must. Whatever way they use to prove it the defense will counter by presenting his own actions. Travons actions were not those of a man fearing for his life, were they? He could have left the danger they insist he felt, he didn't, He could have called the Cops, he didn't. I do not know about you but I think any reasonable person would have done those things. In fact it's obvious. George called with his concern, did he not?

I would imagine the defense will have some explanation but it has nothing to so with being beaten up. Do you mean if I am approached by a person I can beat them up? It's my choice? If George will have to prove reasonable force was needed than so will they, correct? Simply saying,,''we cant'' wont cut it. This is why George's witness is so important.

Oh I agree, I am sure there is much we still do not know. I'm not here for the defense, I'm actually more interested in how they will prove their case. George can just sit, it's their job.
However if they have some proof we sure have not been privy to it and that's the problem I'm having.

 

But according to the FBI there was nothing racial about it. You cant blame zimmerman for being light skinned, and besides he's not white. If those were Travons feelings then he is the one showing a prejudice.

 

FBI classifies racial crimes in accordance of different races, so Hispanic/White versus Black is considered a racial crime if there is a conviction by the Florida jury.

So according to FBI statistics, Travon did have probable cause to be alarmed and stage a preemptive counter attack on a possible assailant.

What transpired after that occurrence is for the Jury to decide, but those initial facts were presented to everyone.

 

So, Zimmerman targeting a young Black male wearing a hoody as a "suspect" is not "racism," and he had every reason to be "frightened to death" of the young man.

But a 17 year old Black teenager, followed in the dark by a White Hispanic man (if he even knew that's what he was. . .after all, he had only seen Zimmerman in his car, in the dark, and. . .does anyone know if the car windows were tinted?) has no reason to be frightened. . .but is a racist for being frightened?

 

Yup, like I said it's the new ''Whack a watchman Law'', this is absurd.....

Next if they ask for your neighbors sprayer you will be expected to hand it over to them. otherwise you may be charged that you used too much force by simply declining.

 

Prove he was targeted, I do not think the FBI said that. George was not frightened to death by ''seeing'' Travon, it was only until he sustained injuries from the fight that he was frightened.

Going by the question that was posed to me in that post, then yes Travon would be showing a prejudice if he said he was frightened just by his color.

 

I do not care how they classify things, no law allows to strike somebody due to color,,Lets put it this way,,I hope they use that defense....LOL

''Your Honor,,our client punched him cause he was white''..............................Perfect...

 

Preemptive counter attacks are protected by law if used for self defense, for example a battered house wife can shoot her husband before he attacks her again.

African American's have a history of being abused by whites, so being followed by one could be perceived as threatening to a young boy.

 

There is no evidence that the physical encounter, after both Zimmerman and Martin lost initial contact with each other, was intentional on either person's part. There is no evidence that Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. All the evidence I'm aware of indicates is was an accidental meeting where Martin could have assumed that Zimmerman was still following him. Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had ceased following him and was returning to meet the police.

 

Not if the husband is not presenting a threat of another attack on the wife. The wife cannot murder her husband in cold blood regardless of past instances of violence. If she had the opportunity to leave the threatening environment then she cannot simply walk into the bedroom and shoot him for example. That would be murder and is against the law.