The "Stand Your Ground Law" had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. SYG plays a huge role in the Zimmerman Case. What so many people fail to acknowledge is that SYG works both ways. TM had just as much right to defend himself against harm as GZ did. Even if TM did attack GZ, without knowing what transpired prior to that attack, one cannot make an accurate assessment of who was the INITIAL aggressor. Even the best eye witnesses can only attest to what happened when the men were on the ground. Sadly, only 2 men can tell us exactly what happened from the time GZ left his vehicle until the time they were "seen" wrestling on the ground, and one of them is unable to give his account. And from all appearances, the other can't seem to get his story straight either. The point I'm getting at is this, without a solid account of what occurred in those few mysterious moments in time, all we have to go by is the evidence which can be verified without dispute. All of that evidence leads a rational person to deduce that GZ was the aggressor, by way of his methodical stalking of TM. I think I would be a bit unnerved too if I was outside my home town, walking home in the dark, with someone obviously following me. Someone who failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch. Someone who is now on foot following me. Given all that, I'd say TM would have been well within his right to SYG. He wasn't required to flee any more that GZ was. Even less so in my opinion, considering he wasn't following GZ. To assume that GZ was justified in shooting TM simply because he was getting his ass handed to him ignores the obvious question of who's actions actions brought the two men to that point in the altercation. Nothing I've seen in GZs various conflicting statements seem to reconcile with the physical evidence. Not the least of which the question of how GZ found himself wrestling with TM some 40 feet away from the T in the sidewalk. The same T that GZ claims he never left from when returning to his vehicle. So lets imagine GZ manage to catch up with TM. He confronts him, TM, now fearing for his own safety, decided to attack. He breaks GZs nose and puts him on his ass. GZ fights back as best he can, but he quickly realizes he is outmatched. At this point he draws his weapon and fires(for on reason or another/either way it is irrelevant). Even IF TM did go for GZs weapon, which I do not believe he did, but again it is irrelevant. TM is fighting against an ARMED man. Personally I would go for the weapon myself if I was in a brawl with an unidentified stranger who had been stalking me for god knows how far, if for no other reason than to prevent it from being used on me. TM had every right to do whatever he had to do to remove himself from a clear and present threat to his own safety. If we trace the events back as far as we possibly can, it become more and more clear who was really afraid of who on that fateful night. Nothing in Zs actions that night indicate to a reasonable person that he was in fear of anything, that is until he realized he had bitten off more than he can chew. I believe Z didn't truly start fearing for his life until the moment he realized that the suspicious person he had killed was actually just an unarmed teenager walking home from the store.

I cannot wait for the court transcripts to this case to become public record. There will be so many people eating crow about their stance on this issue. I watched the trial and examined the case very carefully, Zimmerman acted how every citizen in the civilized world should. This is based on the facts of the case not emotional garbage.

When the transcripts come out, I hope those who are so "Pro Trayvon" can learn what the truth was to this case. I hope that they are human enough to come foward and state that they were wrong.

Originally posted by KingIcarus
reply to post by muse7

 

To be honest, I have no idea if GZ actually murdered this lad, but the whole 'Skittles and Ice Tea' narrative is getting really old.

From a UK perspective it has been simply astonishing to witness how the Liberal/Conservative American media has been shaping this case to involve either a sweet, innocent child or a barbaric gang banger - there's no desire for actual justice in all that, simply agenda pushing.

They should be ashamed of themselves because a young man died (regardless of context) and their constant 'finessing' of the story has meant that it was basically impossible for either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman to receive a fair and objective trial of the facts. Both men have been done a disservice by the media.

The UK press has been nearly as bad. The Mail (Conservative) has been running the grille image, whilst the Guardian (Liberal) has been running the 12 year old image in their coverage today.

Makes me sick.

edit on 14-7-2013 by KingIcarus because: (no reason given)

indeed, the thug pics aren't even trayvons [the deceased one, that is]


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.snopes.com...

reply to post by muse7


theboys father did not live there
the boy did not live there
it was a gated community
the boy bypassed the gate and did not get a visitors pass to visit his father who was working there
the man did quit following the boy after the 911 operator told him to he was on way to meet patrol car.
boy jumped man and was beating him on the ground
man shot boy in chest boy died .
witnesses saw boy beating up man.
boys autopsy report states that only cuts and bruises on boy was on his KNUCKLES IE FIGHT BITES the kind you get by repeatedly hitting someone in mouthonly other mark on boy was gunshot to chest from point blank range.
this whole sad incident was fanned up because media wanted to push their agendas.
man was hispanic but news outlets are still referring to him as a caucasian why?

reply to post by beezzer


The reason why this was different from other confrontations is because there would have never been a confrontation if Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon like the police said. Nothing would have happened if Zimmerman would have just stopped following him. Zimmerman continued to follow him before any confrontation started. The confrontation was a direct result of Zimmerman following Trayvon. Thus, it was directly the fault of Zimmerman's chosen course of action that any confrontation took place. It was Zimmerman who had the gun, and it was Zimmerman who pulled the trigger.

A grown ass man couldn't take on a teenager in a fist fight so he had to pull the gun out. Sounds like something a cop would do.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


Zimmerman didn't even talk to the police that night until after the shooting. Might want to actually learn about what really happened.

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Hmmm.........

So this Administration didnt have any "help" in making this case a Media Circus?

and after?

Just when we thought the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case was over after Zimmerman’s acquittal, the Obama Administration has taken the steps needed to file federal charges, thus sidestepping the well established double jeopardy, against Zimmerman. Unidentified sources within the Administration have confirmed that Obama, and Justice Eric Holder at the Department of Justice have filed charges against Zimmerman for “violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights”.

Obama Files Federal Charges Against George Zimmerman Following Acquittal in Shooting Murder of Trayvon Martin

No "Politics" here................

Frankly I think this case deserved all of the attention it received, a 17 year old kid armed with a bag of skittles and a can of Iced Tea was gunned down because he was wrongly profiled as a criminal, a punk and a god-dam**ed a**hole. On that day George Zimmerman was hell bent on not letting him get away.

He was not "gunned down".
Martin came back and confronted Zimmerman, was on top of him beating him. All Martin had to do was go home, but he didnt.

reply to post by coop039


And all Zimmerman had to do was stay in his vehicle. Martin was trying to go home when this all started. Zimmerman on the other hand was trying to catch Martin. And since no one can account for how the fight started, we can just as easily assume the Zimmerman cut Martin off before he reached home, and in all probablility initiate the altercation through his own reckless actions. It is clear that Zimmerman wanted a confrontation with Martin far more than Martin wanted to be confronted. "These F**king A**holes always get away" ... this line alone tells me that Zimmerman had no intention of letting this "F**king Punk" get away. Which also explains why the shooting happened some 40 feet away from the path Zimmerman claims to have been on.

reply to post by LucidFusion


Except that the prosecution's own witness refutes that.....

reply to post by JIMC5499


To say that SYG has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case is just false and I can prove it....

The Jury was instructed and informed of the SYG Law prior to Jury Deliberations. If SYG has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, the Jury would have never been given the material for consideration.

Originally posted by coop039
He was not "gunned down".
Martin came back and confronted Zimmerman, was on top of him beating him. All Martin had to do was go home, but he didnt.

edit on 15-7-2013 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

This whole "all he had to do was go home" argument to me is just silly.

Let me paint this scenario for you....

You are 17. You just turned 17 less than a month ago. At home, you have a 12 year old boy. Your parents are out.

Now you are being followed by some stranger in a car that you describe as "creepy". You are really going to lead him to your doorstep where there is no one but a 12 year old boy to help you?

I wouldn't.

Not to fan the fire, but the Stand-your-ground law did have some impact on this case. Whether the defense wanted to use the law to their advantage, the law itself altered the way that the police on the scene gathered evidence. It altered how they questioned witnesses. Zimmerman was not even questioned the evening. He wasn't arrested until the DA finally decided that there might be a possibility of winning this case. All of these factors led to a weaker prosecution.

In the end, the defense decided to not use SYG to their advantage, because it freed them from having a pre-trial hearing to determine if SYG was warranted. This was a tactical move. SYG could have been used in Zimmerman's defense, but his attorneys did not want to reveal their strategy. They felt that a jury trial was a safer bet.

And they were right.

Despite the facts of this case, our justice system's breaks down to "who has the best lawyer." If you're pissed, send a well-worded letter to the prosecutor.

reply to post by TKDRL


Just as much as Zimmerman's conflicting statements refute every claim he made regarding his actions and intentions that night. Isn't it odd that a man who claims he acting in self defense chose not to take the stand and testify to his own actions? I would think that an innocent man who knows he was justified would have no reservations about telling his side of the story, if for no other reason than to vindicate himself and his actions.
Were it me, I would INSIST on my right to refute the claims being made against me, not hide behind my million dollar legal team. He was the only livig person who could attest on the record as to what actually happened, from the moment he spotted Martin until the moment that he shot and killed him. He chose not to give that testimony, because he knew that if he had been cross examined his whole defense story would fall apart at the seams. Was it smart to not take the stand? Certainly. He would have been a fool to testify. But the question is, does an honest and rightous man do what is smart, or what is right? I would think a man who knows in his heart he was right would want his story to be heard, and recorded amonst the other evidence. Can anyone imagine any reason why he wouldn't?

Originally posted by LucidFusion
reply to post by TKDRL


He would have been a fool to testify. But the question is, does an honest and rightous man do what is smart, or what is right? I would think a man who knows in his heart he was right would want his story to be heard, and recorded amonst the other evidence. Can anyone imagine any reason why he wouldn't?

Because he didn't want to go to prison. Obviously, you've never been on a witness stand. You don't just go up there and tell what you recall happening. You have to answer questions that are being asked, and sometimes grilled, by a person whos main objective is to "trip you up". In a case such as this, just not having fluid answers or not recalling could quite possibly be an indicater of guilt to a juror.

Also, self defence is a myth. In California anyways. You may be guilty of legal homicide, but you didn't do it in self defence.

Lastly, you would think all those protesters would be worried about all those civil rights violations our government has been commiting against us rather than what George did or didn't against Trayvon. Now that's something worth protesting, no?

Just finished reading the report in 'atlas shrugs' how the defense was not told that the assailant was a known thief, had talked on a cell phone about a 'gun' was, well, you read it, make up your own mind.

This article pretty much explains my reasons for starting this thread. The author does a much better job than I could ever do.

On Profiling and Stand Your Ground