It is just simple self defense unless they prove Zimmerman is lying. If they can't prove that Zimmerman started the violence then he isn't guilty of anything. Following people isn't illegal in this situation. Unless the prosecution can prove that Martin didn't hold him down and beat his ass then there is no case at all.
Zimmerman sues NBC
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
It is just simple self defense unless they prove Zimmerman is lying. If they can't prove that Zimmerman started the violence then he isn't guilty of anything. Following people isn't illegal in this situation. Unless the prosecution can prove that Martin didn't hold him down and beat his ass then there is no case at all.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I disagree that T's slow progress signifies plans for a confrontation. I don't think he hid in wait for Zimmerman. It's possible but improbable imo.
As for "conspiracy", that implies more than one person in on Z's plans andor actions. Unless the spare voices in his head count, I can't see this as conspiracy of any sort, even if Z turns out to be guilty. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
We could argue (and have, for thousands of posts in the previous thread, lol) that Z's insistence to pursue despite the dispatcher's recommendation otherwise qualifies.
Of not that, I consider it more likely than not that Z cornered T and did something like grab him by the front of his jacket (hoodie). The bit of fight witnessed, and the nature and location of both men's injuries, is consistent with that scenario. Proven? no. But not disproven either, and it seems to "fit". Here I defer to the pros. cn
How about 'plot' or 'plan'. It is harder to accept that Z made a plan to kill people for no reason than it is that T was suspicious and attacked Z. Slow progress was BEFORE this. T didn't continue home after Z passed him, thus signifying that he meant to confront him rather than go home. T knew Z wasn't following him in his truck and that he had lost him. Why did he stop instead of going the last feet home given that we know that Z passed him and lost him?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I suggest instead that all it signified was that T was under no obligation to explain his whereabouts or rate of progress to anyone and especially not Z. The answer to the last question was "because he didn't need to". My opinion.
And I do not ascribe a plot to Z. Imo he behaved impulsively/badly when he went to pursue and not stay by the truck. The situation then escalated on him. Anyone carrying a weapon is subject to a "higher standard of care" for which Z plainly didn't. (Care.) cn
from the text:
..................................
[h=6]776.041 Use of force by aggressor.[/h]
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
...........................................
it does matter. in fact, if zimm's story is true, he has to prove he used every reasonable means of escape, and asked T to stop hitting him, and martin kept hitting him... hmmmmm
What recommendation? The dispatcher only stated a fact, that they didn't need him to follow. There was no request, no order, no command whatsoever. What the dispatcher said is wholly irrelevant.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
When a dispatcher takes the time to say "we don't need you to do that", would you not agree that the likeliest interpretation is "I am telling you in the strongest terms allowed me by the restrictions of my job to not do that"? I see trying to position this as no more than a "stated fact" to be a contortion. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but it is required for zimm to exercise every possible way out of the fight.
considering that he was able to gain full wrist control seemingly at will, he's not going to have that out.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you don't know that either of those things are true. you have absolutely zero evidence for either, merely your own racist speculation.
if zimmerman was afraid, like he told serino he was, why did he get out of his car and go after martin several times?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
zimmerman has been polite enough to prove to us that he is lying. he has given multiple conflicting accounts of what took place that night.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you think a lot of retarded things.
that martin didn't go home means that he didn't go home, that is all. it is neither proof nor evidence of anything else. all we know is that he lost zimm and continued talking on the phone until zimm, who was actively searching for martin by his own admission, found him again.
at that point, martin's GF overheard zimm angrily confront martin and the call dropped. martin's phone was found lying in the grass and a trail of items was found leading to the site of the murder. witnesses described a chase. we all know who ran away the first time and who hated seeing those assholes always get away.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and since zimm was able to exercise wrist control over martin at will, he did not exhaust every reasonable means of escape.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i was happy that yourreality denying ass stayed the fuck away after that embarrassing bitch slap you received from reality. perhaps you can continue hiding in shame?
I would think yelling help would be an admission of a desire to withdraw. That's just me though, others might suggest I am racist.
skunky33
Active Member
Zimmerman's whole story is bullshit that's why he's on trial. She said that Martin told her "someone was following him" She told him to run, He said "I'm just going to walk fast" She than says Zimmerman asked "what are you doing here?" Treyvon said "Why are you following me?" That's before she heard a his speech interrupted by what she thought was a push or an attack. She than heard "get off" a few seconds later. This testimony was given before details of the shooting reached her ears. I guess she's a clairvoyant liar.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you've never given me any real reason to think that.
but look at the law, especially the conjunction. note that it says "and", not "or".
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
if you can exercise wrist control over the dude at will, something tells me you have not exhausted every reasonable means to escape. he exercised wrist control for the sole purpose of shooting martin, not for escaping. he said as much himself in the interrogations. i wish more people would listen to the interrogations, they really shed a lot of light on what was going on that night, especially in that retarded dome sitting on zimm's neck.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
What does it sound like when someone gets pushed vs pushed someone over the phone?
IF Zimm intended to kill the young man, why even question his motive? Why even ask "What are you doing here?" Especially knowing that the cops are mere seconds away. Seems plausible, but highly unlikely.
BTW His story being BS isn't why he is on trial, political pressure and the media attention are the reason. The police and the DA were more than willing to let bygones be bygones.
Similar threads
