Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

reply to post by solarjetman

2. Part 2a is a bit mind-boggling to me. Please humor me while I attempt to make sense of this. Is this implying that, HYPOTHETICALLY, Zimmerman could've hunted Trayvon down, cornered him and said a bunch of threatening stuff to him, even attacked him, and if Trayvon fought back and knocked him to the ground, proceeds to bash his head in an attempt to knock him unconscious or whatever, Zimmerman entirely had the right to shoot him?

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this section would specifically exclude a person from having the use of force being justified, if they 'cornered, threatened, or attacked' someone. All of those should constitute a felony, maybe not the threats, that would depend on the nature of the threats themselves.

well having an id or uniform for a neighborhood watch would be irrelevant if zimmerman had obeyed NW rules and just watched and reported but since he decided to get out and look for trayvon now he could be perceived as an attacker. think about it even an off duty police officer will announce himself as the police. zimmerman could have been a serial killer for all trayvon knew.

as far as the evidence that the prosecutors say they have that zimmerman chased trayvon and trayvon turned around and fought zimmerman in self defense, well that has stand your ground written all over it doesent it?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by solarjetman

 

2. Part 2a is a bit mind-boggling to me. Please humor me while I attempt to make sense of this. Is this implying that, HYPOTHETICALLY, Zimmerman could've hunted Trayvon down, cornered him and said a bunch of threatening stuff to him, even attacked him, and if Trayvon fought back and knocked him to the ground, proceeds to bash his head in an attempt to knock him unconscious or whatever, Zimmerman entirely had the right to shoot him?

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this section would specifically exclude a person from having the use of force being justified, if they 'cornered, threatened, or attacked' someone. All of those should constitute a felony, maybe not the threats, that would depend on the nature of the threats themselves.

Okay, so let's say all of the above happened except for the attack part. Lets say Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, cornered him, talked a lot of trash and basically did the worst possible things short of attempting to commit a forcible felony. I am looking at the worst-case scenario to see if I understand this part correctly, because it sounds to me like unless you are attempting to commit a felony your use of force can be justified, even if (2) you initially provoke the force against yourself-- and like people have been arguing, chasing someone around and even cornering them isn't against the law.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
well having an id or uniform for a neighborhood watch would be irrelevant if zimmerman had obeyed NW rules and just watched and reported but since he decided to get out and look for trayvon now he could be perceived as an attacker. think about it even an off duty police officer will announce himself as the police. zimmerman could have been a serial killer for all trayvon knew.

as far as the evidence that the prosecutors say they have that zimmerman chased trayvon and trayvon turned around and fought zimmerman in self defense, well that has stand your ground written all over it doesent it?

A fair trial now is impossible.
Blame the MSM blame al sharpton
don't blame the messenger
How did zimmerman know if treyvon had a gun or not
he was in fear for his life. PROVE he did not act in self defense
ZIMMERMAN does not have to prove he is innocent.

well if they can prove that zimmerman was chasing trayvon that will throw a wrench in the whole self defense claim. how could you be afraid someone might have a gun and be in fear for your life if you chased the guy?

Originally posted by solarjetman

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by solarjetman

 

2. Part 2a is a bit mind-boggling to me. Please humor me while I attempt to make sense of this. Is this implying that, HYPOTHETICALLY, Zimmerman could've hunted Trayvon down, cornered him and said a bunch of threatening stuff to him, even attacked him, and if Trayvon fought back and knocked him to the ground, proceeds to bash his head in an attempt to knock him unconscious or whatever, Zimmerman entirely had the right to shoot him?

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that this section would specifically exclude a person from having the use of force being justified, if they 'cornered, threatened, or attacked' someone. All of those should constitute afelony, maybe not the threats, that would depend on the nature of the threats themselves.

Okay, so let's say all of the above happened except for the attack part. Lets say Zimmerman chased Trayvon down, cornered him, talked a lot of trash and basically did the worst possible things short of attempting to commit a forcible felony. I am looking at the worst-case scenario to see if I understand this part correctly, because it sounds to me like unless you are attempting to commit a felony your use of force can be justified, even if (2) you initially provoke the force against yourself-- and like people have been arguing, chasing someone around and even cornering them isn't against the law.

edit on 9-5-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)

I don't believe that any amount of verbal taunting or arguing is justification for use of force. It isn't legal for someone to impede someone else's travel in a public place, if that is what Zimmerman may have done. I don't think that that would constitute a felony in most jurisdictions. But if Zimmerman did impede Trayvon's travel, Trayvon should have used the phone to call the police. If Zimmerman didn't use any physical force against Trayvon to impede his travel, then I don't believe Trayvon had any right to use force against Zimmerman.

Since we don't know anything that happened before the eyewitness saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman, other than Zimmerman's story.... It doesn't change much for us. It will be for a jury to weigh, if a jury hears it.

reply to post by conspiracy nut

well if they can prove that zimmerman was chasing trayvon that will throw a wrench in the whole self defense claim. how could you be afraid someone might have a gun and be in fear for your life if you chased the guy?

With the information available to us now, I don't know how a prosecutor would prove that Zimmerman was chasing him.
Who knows what 'secret witness(es)' the prosecution may have that we don't know about? Discovery will be interesting. If the state wants to make a case, they better have something that we don't know about, IMO.

reply to post by butcherguy


yeah the prosecutor alluded to the fact that they have evidence and witnesses showing that zimmerman chased trayvon. i'm sure the discovery will reveal a treasure trove of info that we don't know about.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by butcherguy

 

yeah the prosecutor alluded to the fact that they have evidence and witnesses showing that zimmerman chased trayvon. i'm sure the discovery will reveal a treasure trove of info that we don't know about.

This is unlikely since O’Mara asked the lead investigator specifically if in his bond hearing.So i dont believe the state has any evidence to prove he didnt stop chasing Treyvon.He also tells us the state has no proof Zimmerman started the altercation.So in effect the main point they have to prove they have nothing.

Heres part of the hearing:
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?

O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

O’MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?

GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.

O’MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?

GILBREATH: I don’t know that it’s primary. It’s one of the concerns, yes.

O’MARA: Nothing further.

reply to post by solarjetman


He did comment on it himself.. he said it.

It was obviously from direct experience.

reply to post by Annee


That is relevant that would mean he is not racist. The black homeless man that was beat by cops that he went on a crusade for to bring justice and punish the cops.. that wasn't in "his circle."

I doubt the black kids he tutors are "in his circle." He isn't racist. He might have some prejudice against people that dress as thugs, but it had nothing to do with race.

He had those prejudices , as we all know by now, because his community was being terrorized by criminals fitting that description. Actually, it's hard to call it prejudice or prejudging when his experiences with those types of people in his neighborhood had led him to those opinions.. let's call it postjudice. He saw a stranger in a gated neighborhood that looked like all the guys that had been robbing, burglarizing and terrorizing the neighborhood and he acted. The teen reacted stupidly assaulting Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself. Case pretty much closed.

I'll just say.. if it were me and I saw some guy following/watching me my first and natural instinct would be to yell out asking what they wanted and to explain that I was just going home. Not just run, even in fear if it was just one guy and at a distance I know that is how i would respond.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

He might have some prejudice against people that dress as thugs, but it had nothing to do with race.

There is no such thing as 'people who dress as thugs'. that is a stereotype, a generalisation. This is the essence of profiling.

He had those prejudices , as we all know by now, because his community was being terrorized by criminals fitting that description.

Fit what description? 'Dressing as thugs?' You mean your definition of dressing as thugs or Zimmerman's definition? you realise they are likely different, right? Did you by any chance check out the clothing of these 'terrorizing criminals' after they were apprehended? Did their clothing meet the definition, yours or Zimmernan's, of'thugs?

Actually, it's hard to call it prejudice or prejudging when his experiences with those types of people in his neighborhood had led him to those opinions.. let's call it postjudice.

Yes, lets call it what it is; profiling based upon clothing. Read; Definitions and bone up on them.

He saw a stranger in a gated neighborhood that looked like all the guys that had been robbing, burglarizing and terrorizing the neighborhood

You have no idea of what 'all the guys that had been 'robbing, burglarizing and terrorizing' looked like. If you do, then provide evidence.

The teen reacted stupidly assaulting Zimmerman

Since you have no idea of the situation, you have no idea of whether the 'teen's' action was 'stupid' or not, actually, you have no idea of what actions the 'teen' made. Since you are freely throwing the word 'stupid about here...

and Zimmerman defended himself. Case pretty much closed.

Sherlock you are not.

reply to post by spacedog1973

There is no such thing as 'people who dress as thugs'. that is a stereotype, a generalisation. This is the essence of profiling.

If you walked into a place (let's say a bar) that you were not familiar with, and found the place full of white guys with shaved heads, wearing boots and having Germanic tribal tattoos. Do you think you might have a tendency to profile these people..... just on their appearance?

You can say no. But most people would be apprehensive, since they could be pretty certain that they had walked into a 'skinhead' bar, based just on appearances.

Oh, BTW, the skinheads are thugs.... and many groups can be 'outed' by their clothing and appearance, many want to be. Crips and Bloods come to mind.

reply to post by butcherguy


you do have a point and i understand where you are coming from to an extent.
the thing is we shouldnt use those stereotypes to follow and presume someone is a criminal. otherwise the 911 line would be busy 24-7 w people calling the police on "suspicious people" every 5 minutes. we shouldnt ever pre-judge people based on their appearance or style of clothing. i have seen the cleanest cut preppiest people be the biggest criminals and "thugs" and i have see the preppiest people of all colors and backgrounds dressing "thuggish" like it or not it is a current style among young people nowadays. just because someone does not dress or act like you does not mean they are "suspicious".

as far as zimmerman profiling a certain type of person that was committing crimes in his neighborhood, he went beyond his duty as a concerned citizen (neighborhood watch) when he decided to follow and allegedly chase trayvon. it could have easily been the other way around and if trayvon really was a thug and had a gun on him zimmerman could have been the dead one.

by over stepping his boundaries can we all agree that zimmerman acted irresponsibly as the "mature" adult neighborhood watchman in this case?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

by over stepping his boundaries can we all agree that zimmerman acted irresponsibly as the "mature" adult neighborhood watchman in this case?

Treyvon was 3 months away from being a *legal adult*...

Zimmerman did not overstep any boundries
he was keeping watch when he was jumped
by treyvon and then had to defend his life
and limb...

reply to post by conspiracy nut

we shouldnt ever pre-judge people based on their appearance or style of clothing.

A wise person would say that we shouldn't.

Fact is, we all do.
I know a fellow that has millions of dollars in the bank, yet he looks like a homeless person almost every time I see him. I mean homeless. Not just old ripped clothing, but dirty clothing.

If you saw him outside of the bank he was just signing papers in, you might be tempted to give him enough money to buy a sandwich. That is because we all pre-judge people on their appearance. Even if it is subconsciously, we do it.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by butcherguy

 

by over stepping his boundaries can we all agree that zimmerman acted irresponsibly as the "mature" adult neighborhood watchman in this case?

Legality aside, I feel like is pretty evident that Zimmerman took some irresponsible actions to say the least. All else equal--meaning if NONE of the events following Zimmerman's phone call occurred-- Zimmerman was aggressive beyond the scope of his role as a neighborhood watchman, plain and simple. With power comes great responsibility, and if you choose to appoint yourself as neighborhood watch captain, then you're inherently agreeing to adhere to a set of rules and ethical conduct.

The thing is, it isn't necessarily illegal to be irresponsible, unethical, or immature, and the real dynamite issue in this case apparently occurred in a few minute window during which we have no idea what happened, other than Zimmerman's accounts. What it's looking like to me is that Florida law favors the guy declaring self defense by default, and it's up to prosecutors to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, the questionable initial police work does neither side of the case any favors, and we may never truly find out what happened. I'm guessing for a lot of people, this story grips them because in their eyes it is a case where legality and morality/ethics do not directly correlate.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

I'll just say.. if it were me and I saw some guy following/watching me my first and natural instinct would be to yell out asking what they wanted and to explain that I was just going home

So basically, you would be the guy who dies in the first 5 minutes of the horror movie, when you're walking in a strange area and hear creepy sounds coming around the corner, you'll yell, "Hello who's there?" and go investigate. Get out of here.

reply to post by solarjetman


That's how the law is supposed to work, default is not guilty. It's up to the state to tip the scales to guilty with evidence.

reply to post by solarjetman


How often does real life work like in the movies?