The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by FlyersFan

- However, he ended up killing Martin in self defense from a 'sudden combat' situation and while resisting an attempt by Martin to commit a felony against him. So this falls under justifiable homicide.

None of this is actual fact. It's kind of why they are having a trial right now.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Actually, looking in people's houses isn't illegal either.

Actually, it can be.
Voyeurism Statutes Around the Country

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by FlyersFan
- However, he ended up killing Martin in self defense from a 'sudden combat' situation and while resisting an attempt by Martin to commit a felony against him. So this falls under justifiable homicide.

None of this is actual fact. It's kind of why they are having a trial right now.

It's been established as fact by eyewitness that a felony was being committed against Zimmerman by Martin. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the snot out of him. That's felony assault.

What hasn't .. and won't ever be ... established is who started the fight.
And since there is 'reasonable doubt' about who started it .... Zimmerman can't be convicted.

GZ's gonna walk. They won't even convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter. It'll be self-defense. Book it. Then the riots will ensue.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Libertygal


Looking IN peoples' houses, there is a difference.

That is known as prowling.

Peeping.

Any sensible person knows by watching someone, especially someone raised around law enforcement in the family, what the term "a crime is afoot" means.

Actually, looking in people's houses isn't illegal either. And you only have George's word that he was doing anything except just walking along.

Still, probably best he's dead. Can't have people looking at houses. Especially, you know, those kind of people.

You know, that response was disgusting.

People like you, keeping the race card in the discussion at every available opportunity, are a large part of the problem.

I answered your post with a legal reply. Yes, technically, the description of his behavior WAS illegal. It is a misdameanor in the state of Florida. The description of his behavior legally fits the definition of prowling. George called 911 and gave a reasonable and articulable reason, under the 4th Amendendment of the United States, for a uniformed officer to perform a Terry Stop.

Sorry this doesn't fit into your sickening race- driven agenda.

Expect no further responses from me, as all you do is look for an opening in every reply to drop the race card.

Over, and over, and over, and over, and over. Quite frankly, I am tired of attempting to reason beyond it, ignore it, and answer reasonably.

Have fun with your self imposed race war.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Libertygal is trying to suggest that Zimmerman should be allowed to shoot Martin because Martin was committing some kind of crime, or about to.

And, according to Florida law, Libertygal is corrrect.
Justifiable Homicide .... For those who missed it -

If accused of Manslaughter in Florida you need to know this

Excusable Homicide - The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

Justifiable Homicide - The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Actually, looking in people's houses isn't illegal either.

Actually, it can be.
Voyeurism Statutes Around the Country

Oh .. and let me add the anti-prowling and loitering laws ...
Florida Statues Against Prowling and Loitering

856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.—

(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

(2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Actually, looking in people's houses isn't illegal either.

Actually, it can be.
Voyeurism Statutes Around the Country

But it has to be a concerted effort to look inside which I think you might have trouble proving.

For a moment let's imagine you can be convicted of a crime posthumously. Ask yourself this, do you think a court would prosecute Martin for voyeurism or prowling based on Zimmerman's testimony? The word of a guy who killed him - and thus has a serious interest in lying - and who admits he didn't see him for any great length of time?

And if not, why should we take Zimmerman's word that Martin was behaving as though about to commit a crime?

Personally I think George saw a black guy in a hood and assumed he was up to no good. His imagination created the 'looking in houses'.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


But Libertygal is trying to suggest that Zimmerman should be allowed to shoot Martin because Martin was committing some kind of crime, or about to.

Well noone should be shot for a crime or less, by a neighborhood watchman - thats for sure.

But i have a hard time letting go of the screaming part.
If Martin was screaming for help, then zimmerman had the upper hand and i assume he could make a civil arrest and then be the hero of the day - he knew the police was comin.

what changed that? why would zimmerman that made martin beg for help, draw his gun and kill him? He allready had him down, he was clearly on top of hte situation, why kill?

On the other hand, if zimmerman was the one begging for help then Martin had zimmerman pinned down, it would make sense that its selfdefence.

But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had
one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not
exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


That is simply a falacy. A video was released from Trayvons cellphone just over a week ago of him watching some people street fighting a guy with a bike.

There are innumerable videos on youtube that are against T&C to even post links to, that require your approval to watch. They depict Trayvon both street fighting on school grounds, refereeing other children fighting, and just videos where he is encouraging girl-fights.

Just because you have not seen them does not mean they do not exist. He had been recording, or having his fights recorded, and put on youtube, a LONG time.

Rachael even stated she thought he just got in another fight. He was known for it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's been established as fact by eyewitness that a felony was being committed against Zimmerman by Martin. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the snot out of him. That's felony assault.

If the only person who saw them on the ground can't say any such thing with certainty, it is NOT "established as fact". Not even remotely.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What hasn't .. and won't ever be ... established is who started the fight.
And since there is 'reasonable doubt' about who started it .... Zimmerman can't be convicted.

While the defence would love to focus on the altercation only, it's not like the prior events have no relevance to how George ended up in his predicament.

Do you think you'd have a different opinion if you found out George's car had been parked ahead of Trayvon's last seen position? I know if I was to see the footage from Officer Smith's patrol car as he drove down Twin Trees Lane and George's car was seen exactly where he said it was, I'd be far more inclined to believe he just might be truthful in his description of what happened. As it stands though, I see no corroboration of George's movements either prior to or during the nen call up to the point he got out of his vehicle.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
But it has to be a concerted effort to look inside which I think you might have trouble proving.

It doesn't have to be proven. Martins behavior fits the description of prowling close enough that it is feasible for a neighborhood watchman to call in to police that a person is prowling. That's what Zimmerman did. He called the cops as he was supposed to do.

The point is .. you said it wasn't illegal to look in windows.
I gave three examples from Florida law that say it is illegal.
Voyeurism, prowling, and loitering.

Originally posted by Libertygal

But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had
one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not
exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

That is simply a falacy. A video was released from Trayvons cellphone just over a week ago of him watching some people street fighting a guy with a bike.

There are innumerable videos on youtube that are against T&C to even post links to, that require your approval to watch. They depict Trayvon both street fighting on school grounds, refereeing other children fighting, and just videos where he is encouraging girl-fights.

Just because you have not seen them does not mean they do not exist. He had been recording, or having his fights recorded, and put on youtube, a LONG time.

Rachael even stated she thought he just got in another fight. He was known for it.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

Is there any evidence there that he was actually any good at fighting in this catalogue of his fighting career? Are these videos on Liveleak? While I'm far from impressed with the concept that people who film such things are equally likely to carry them out, I'd be interested to see this treasure trove of evidence. Not interested enough to get myself a youtube account to see them, though. How about pm'ing me a link if you know of other sources?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If the only person who saw them on the ground can't say any such thing with certainty, it is NOT "established as fact". Not even remotely.

*sigh* It's been established through both eyewitness testimony and forensics that Martin was indeed on top of Zimmerman pounding the snot out of him. It absolutely has been established. Martin was assaulting Zimmerman.

what hasn't been established, and won't ever be, is just who started the fight. And without knowing that, there is 'reasonable doubt' and therefore there can be no Murder 2 conviction.

While the defence would love to focus on the altercation only, it's not like the prior events have no relevance to how George ended up in his predicament.

The events prior are why manslaughter is being discussed.
The events prior don't raise to Murder 2 level.

reply to post by Minus

But Libertygal is trying to suggest that Zimmerman should be allowed to shoot
Martin because Martin was committing some kind of crime, or about to.

Just to be clear, this is misleading, and a lie, I did no such thing. You can go look at the post yourself. A statement was made that Trayvon was doing nothing illegal, and I disagreed with that, and even posted the Fla. Definition of prowling, just as FF did.

He is being intententionally deceptive.

I do feel that George had the right to self defense if he is telling the truth.

The way my words were twisted is a lie. George opened his 911 call about a suspicious person, which was before anything took place. He had no reason to lie. He gave the defininition, by law, of a prowler.

I also stated that by definition, thus gave ths officer the right to perform a Terry Stop under the 4TH Amendment.

It is a term known as "a crime is afoot". Instead of reading, though, some people try to lie and twist words and play the race card and make it look like people said things they never did.

My posts are there, and no such inference was ever made.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Is there any evidence there that he was actually any good at fighting in this catalogue of his fighting career?

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman was actually any good at fighting? No. Do you see the double standard that you are employing here? You assume Zimmerman was some fantastic fighter and you dismiss that Martin was the one who actually got into the street fights. The fact that Martin was beating up Zimmerman tells us clearly that Martin was a better fighter. It's pretty obvious ....

Anyways .. double standard. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was any good at fighting.
Just taking lessons doesn't mean someone is any good at what they are trying to learn.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Oh .. and let me add the anti-prowling and loitering laws ...

I've read them. Note that we only have Zimmerman's flawed (and, to be extremely generous, self-interested) testimony to say that Martin was doing anything that amounted to prowling or loitering.

Note also that the statute requires that a law enforcement officer (which Zimmerman isn't) needs to give the suspect an opportunity to dispel that notion. And that even if Martin was doing this - which no one can prove - it doesn't give another citizen the right to shoot him.

I think George saw a black guy and assumed he was up to no good. Basically I might as well come round to your house, shoot you, and then say that you mentioned you were going to rob my house. That's how strong this argument is.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You mean the forensic evidence which shows Zimmerman had to be on the floor for an extended period of time, because of all the grass stains on the back of his jacket, and that Trayvon had to be in a mounted position for an extended period because of the obvious grass stains on his knees?

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Minus

 

But Libertygal is trying to suggest that Zimmerman should be allowed to shoot
Martin because Martin was committing some kind of crime, or about to.

Just to be clear, this is misleading, and a lie, I did no such thing. You can go look at the post yourself. A statement was made that Trayvon was doing nothing illegal, and I disagreed with that, and even posted the Fla. Definition of prowling, just as FF did.

thank for clarify that i agree bout that, it was not what you ment.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
And that even if Martin was doing this - which no one can prove - it doesn't give another citizen the right to shoot him.

He didn't shoot Martin for loitering. He shot Martin because he was getting beat up to the point where he thought his life and health were in serious danger.

I think George saw a black guy and assumed he was up to no good.

Yes ... we all get that is what you think ... you've been VERY clear this is all about race for you.