TexasCHLforum.com

Frankie wrote:[ Image ]

Ben Ghazi, good one!

Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
1. You continually ignore the fact that the only illegal act was committed by Martin when he assaulted Zimmerman. The evidence supports this and the jury had to believe that Zimmerman did not provoke the confrontation in order to find he engaged in lawful self-defense thus finding him not guilty.

2. In your item number 2 you claim Zimmerman was "wrong." What do you mean by "wrong" in this context? His actions certainly were not unlawful, so you must be applying your personal standard of conduct. If it's not your personal standard, then what do you mean by "wrong?"

3. Doing something unwise doesn't make you a "batman" as you falsely claim. By your theory, I would have been playing "batman" when I, on at least a half dozen occasions, have followed drunk drivers while reporting them to the police. Only two of those times occurred when I was a police officer (off duty). Don't tell me that's different from the Zimmerman/Martin matter. It isn't. I was following them because the dispatcher kept asking me for locations. At any time the drunk could have taken the offensive against me forcing me to defend myself, just as Martin attacked Zimmerman when he was on his way back to his vehicle.

4. Why you persist in using pejorative descriptions like "batman" when describing acts that are entirely lawful is beyond comprehension.

Chas.

1. I am not ignoring this fact. As “Billitt" stated, Zimmerman could have been committing harassment in the fact that based on an ear witness’s testimony Martin felt a creepy individual continued to follow him causing Martin to feel threaten. Martin would have to testify to Zimmerman’s actions to have harassment charges filed (But we will never get that statement). The lead detective during the interrogation specifically stated to Zimmerman that he believed Martin was terrified of Zimmerman based on his behavior. Regarding the confrontation, on Cooper’s exclusive interview with juror B37, she stated they only considered events from when the proven punch was thrown. Not who initiated the confrontation.

2. “Wrong” not unlawful. I clearly stated my personal view as well as many on this very thread have in other threads, and stated in the CHL course I took; “when carrying, avoid confrontations as best possible.” He had already taken the “right” course of action, reporting suspicious behavior. “Wrong” was when he departed the vehicle and went in the direction Martin, this alleged nefarious character, had disappeared. So I change my “wrong” comment to “imprudent”. In a court of law, that could translate to “negligent”. So much so, the homeowner’s association settled out of court.

3. Following someone that is committing an act that could immediately endanger others at a safe distance is a noble act. However, it could also be an imprudent one if the noble individual themselves create a negligible event (I won’t list all the possible scenarios). Some agencies require their officers while off duty to retain their lawful powers. Therefore, you were not playing Batman due to your lawful right in 2 of the 6 occasions. The other four are debatable.

4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

ScooterSissy wrote:I keep hearing about how GZ put himself in a bad situation, or should not have followed, or caused it, etc. I keep asking how so.

1.Was he wrong to have observed and called in when he saw someone suspicious?
2.Was he wrong to have moved outside the car to observe the suspicous person? Keep in mind that at that point, TM was between buildings, so GM couldn't follow in his vehicle, and the dispatcher was actively asking him questions (asking for descriptions).
3.Was he wrong to have stopped following when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"? (that was his claim)
4. Was he wrong to have pulled his gun when he was getting his head smashed against the pavement?
5. TM and his mother and father were far more responsible for TM's death than GZ was.

1. This is exactly what is consistently advocated here and in class. He was very right.
2. Yes he was wrong, and the final outcome is validation. It is consistently advocated here and in class to be a good witness. The authorities were in route and no one was in eminent danger.
3. Based on the final outcome and what was mentioned in answer #2.
4. No, he was not wrong, but if he never got out the car may not have needed to use his weapon.
5. His parents are as much at fault as your parents are for all your opinions.

Zimmerman was playing Batman. Although he had a right, so did Martin, to be on the property, it was a communal property. As a CHL holder, it is highly advised to avoid confrontation. Before it's claimed he was looking for an address, he could have remained in his car and drove further to acquire the information requested; rather walking in the same direction Martin disappeared. If any of us get caught up like Zimmerman did and have to go to a jury trial and eventually get an acquitted, the financial cost for playing Batman will be painful.
Just as Texas Joker mentioned, this case has further fueled and equipped the antis with their crusade to vilify gun owners. Many pro 2As are on the defensive, which I understand. But, Zimmerman was playing Batman. The Batmen amongst us can be the catalyst for helping pro self-defense bills getting repealed.

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Valor wrote:
And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

Pulease. The assault charge was 8 years prior, when he was 21. He "assualted" an undercover agent that he didn't know was an agent, who was manhandling his friend. The charges were eventually dismissed. LEO doesn't allow dismissal of charges in a real assault.

The domestic issue was purely a civil matter, and both parties had restraining orders issued.

Thank you for confirming Zimmerman's past aggressive behavior. And thanks again for inferring young men/boys do stupid stuff and can grow up to be productive citizens. Except in this case, one young person will not have a chance to chart a productive path. Realizing this is a public forum and all are entitled to express their opinion; I am angst by folks on both sides with their vilification and obvious biases of Martin and Zimmerman. FWIW, I challenge the pro-Martinites on liberal leaning boards that spew extreme bias as well.

mamabearCali wrote: His school record, his calling people racial slurs, the fact that he was suspended for ten days and had been out of school more than he had been in it, the burglary tools found in his possession. The fact that his mother could not handle him and so sent him to his father. He was not a church boy on his way to choir practice. He was nearly a man and was on a downward spiral.

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

03Lightningrocks wrote: OK... instead of calling a cop, he stayed on the phone with his girlfriend and told her some cracka was following him and he was about to beat him down and steal his wallet. Better? He probably told her he might be able to buy a crack rock with his new found wealth. The kid was a punk ghetto thug! You want to pretend he was having a prayer meeting with that girl?

I'll buy that if you will buy into Zimmerman being a creepy "cracka" that was out to ensure by all means another "thug" would not get away with terrorizing his neighborhood. Keep in mind, turns out Martin was an invited guess of the property with no criminal record. What factual proof you have that Martin was a thug?

03Lightningrocks wrote: Instead of calling a cop, this thug called his girlfriend, bragged he was about to beat the guy down,(and probably steal his wallet), made racial slurs about the person following him and then set up a surprise attack.
!

Pardon me, but you are misstating the facts. The female friend called him. It was never stated Martin bragged about a beat down. There is no evidence presented inferring or stating Martin was attempting a mugging. Surprise attack? Did the defense present that, if so with what evidence? Nevertheless, people on both sides continue to spew out their versions of what happened rather what have actually been presented in a court of law.

[quote="clarionite"]
Would you assault that person and slam his head into the sidewalk?
quote]

If I believe him to be creepy and he all of sudden began to dig in his pocket for an unknown object, and doing such his weapon was exposed. I too may fear for my life or bodily harm.

Panda wrote:Thats a different set of facts but I can't legally shoot/stab/beat a clown because he creeps me out. Not even if he follows me around my neighbor's back yard at the party.

If that clown accidently or intentionally exposed his/her concealed weapon, you may not contemplate a legal remedy at that moment. Nevertheless, good commentary all regarding what Martin's legal right for self-defense. The instructions the jurors will be issued and their knowledge and interpretation will be key.

mojo84 wrote:The belief/fear for your life or fear of serious bodily injury is the standard. At least that is the way I understand it. Is that not the case?

Could it not be argued that Martin feared for his life? He felt he was being followed by a "creepy..." When they confronted one another, Zimmerman began to reach in his pocket for, at the time an unknown object. Martin may have then at that time struck Zimmerman in the face out of fear for his life. Should Martin have waited for a deadly weapon to be produced? Because it is fact that Zimmerman conceded and later used a deadly weapon resulting in death. This is not an open and close case folks. The jurors have a lot to consider.

ScooterSissy wrote:Sorry man, but self-defense does not require any "life threatening" injuries. As a matter of fact, they don't require any injuries at all. No one should have to wait until they've been seriously injured before they are justified in defending themselves.

Agree, but will a jury see it that way? Will they believe a few gashes and lumps justify an adult shooting to death a teenager that was not committing a crime? As Howdy has mentioned regarding Juror deliberations, they may not be privy to the info and understanding us armchair QB’s have.

Good insight Howdy from a Juror’s point of view. With that, the jury has heard from:

- an ear witness, although a questionable testimony, it is consistent and asserts Martin felt he was followed. That same testimony assert Martin and Zimmerman had a verbal confrontation (prosecution)
- many neighbors with conflicting stories (defense)
- questionable forensics (defense)
- photos of Zimmerman injuries, which do not appear life threatening (prosecution)
- A zany ME, that may have confused the jurors (neutral)
- family members from both sides claiming the screams were their beloved (neutral)

At this point, I still say it is a flip of the coin; from a Juror’s perspective. If the defense can present a "glove that doesn't fit" scenario, deliberation will be short and Zimmerman walks. Should be another interesting week of trail.

Various timeline speculations:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;