TexasCHLforum.com

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.

The fact that he was already injured only shows he exercised some restraint before defending himself. Martin didn't bash is head, then stand up and say "I'm done, you can go home now". He not only continued bashing, but had already expressed an intent to kill Zimmerman.

If self defense requires life threatening injuries then defense against rape requires a sonagram of the resulting fetus. Thankfully we don't live in that world.

A bit late to the party this morning -- who is the young woman who is testifying now?

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.

Valor wrote:

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.

He WAS committing a crime. Assault with a deadly weapon (the sidewalk).

Valor wrote:

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.

Should be an interesting verdict. The jury's decision is all that matters. Will they see Z as a good person defending himself or an over zealous wanna be cop racially profiling a teenager or somewhere in between that got in over his head? Time will tell.

Any "normal" group of people would find Z not guilty. There is no real evidence he did anything wrong. A man is straddling and sitting on a Z and knocking him senseless by slamming his head against the pavement plus beating his face in with his fists, per the eyewitness "MMA style". There is physical evidence of Z's injuries and physical evidence on TM hands. There is no real evidence to the contrary. No mention of a single wound to TM except his fists and the gunshot.

Open and shut case.

However, high profile juries are not "normal" people.

A guilty verdict will certainly embolden BG's on the street. I wonder if they will think about that?

If he has to wait until he has suffered life threatening injuries before he can defend himself, there are many cases that have been deemed justified that shouldn't have been.

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?

I've seen someone having their head slammed on the concrete. I can assure you, if I had not intervened, the recipient would have been killed.

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.

Valor wrote:

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.

Both men may avail themselves of the law in their defense. In Martin's case, assuming the facts are as you have stated them, he would have been justified in using deadly force IF he saw the weapon. Assuming a weapon is about to be produced is not justification for the use of deadly force. Once Martin started pounding on Zimmerman, he was committing the crime of aggravated battery. Under Florida law, Zimmerman would then be justified in using deadly force even if he was not in fear of his life. However, Zimmerman cried for help for more than 40 seconds before using his weapon. By that time, he had the right to use deadly force for two reasons; the commission of aggravated battery against him and the fear of imminent bodily harm or death.

Valor wrote:

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.

Not without proof that Zimmerman posed a real threat.

Following alone is not a threat. Putting your hand in your pocket alone is not a threat.

If GZ said, "I'm going to shoot you" and reached in his pocket, then yes. If he said, "I'm about to kill you" and reached into his pocket, then yes. If he said, "I have a gun and I'm going to use it" and reached into his pocket, then yes.

Instead, we have testimony that GZ said, "What are you doing here?" before being battered.

No, TM cannot claim justified self defense.

Valor wrote:

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.

Interesting point. Instead, TM kills Z from head trauma. Z is found to have a gun. TM claims self defense from man following him with a gun. Except Why did you not just go home, why did you confront Z unarmed. Stand your ground?

Valor wrote: 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.

No one but Martin can say what he did (or did not) fear. Anyone else saying so it 100% speculation. In other words, there's been no evidence presented that Martin was defending himself, and certainly nothing indicating he was in fear for his life.

The incredibly frequent breaks for commercials on HLN are driving me nuts. Where is a better place to watch the trial?

mojo84 wrote:The incredibly frequent breaks for commercials on HLN are driving me nuts. Where is a better place to watch the trial?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-he ... al-day-10/
I've been preferring the local Florida feed, but even the NBC News feed is better than the HLN or Fox News feeds. HLN adds commercials and Fox does commentary during every break. NBC News shows a logo and the local Florida feed just shows the seal behind the judge during breaks.

Keeping a round in the chamber came up today. Very interesting to see how that played in court when discussing what is "normal".

Valor wrote:

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.

I can argue that I am afraid of clowns but that doesn't justify me shooting the clown at my neighbors kids birthday party. Not legally at least.