What if George Zimmerman DID act in self defense?

[Anonymous]

We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

[Anonymous]

I think Zimmerman was over-stepping his role as "neighborhood watch" and still bears a large amount of responsibility for the young man's death, but it might turn out that in fact there is no basis to prosecute him under Florida law.

[Anonymous]

That's what a trial is for.

[Anonymous]

He followed a pedestrian with his car and then got out of the car. He started any altercation that there was.

[Anonymous]

I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

[Anonymous]

I read the updated news stories and it still makes no sense to me.

Zimmerman chased him, as evidenced by the 911 tapes. Then he said he was going back to his car (not on 911 tape) and was attacked from behind in a mostly grassy area and beaten? Then managed to pull a gun and shoot the kid in the chest at close range?

If they had pictures of a bruised Zimmerman, then I'd believe it. I'm suspicious as to why only now this information is being released by Zimmerman's family, but its plausible.

I do agree with PP this is for the grand jury to decide.

[Anonymous]

the plot thickens....

The problem from the beginning is that when someone is dead in a public place, it seems like there should be a full investigation of what happened. I have heard that the police weren't allowed to arrest GZ b/c of the SYG law. The lack of an initial investigation/arrest made it look like a racial situation.

Who knows what will come to light now that they are investigating. We probably will never know the whole truth b/c some evidence was never taken. It may come out that TM was up to no good. Maybe he was high on drugs and did attack GZ first (which seems so illogical). I jumped to conclusions right away too... but I'm stepping back and waiting to see what the evidence shows. The police could have avoided 99% of this mess if they had done a full investigation right away.

[Anonymous]

The whole thing could have been avoided. If your kid gets suspended, why let them travel to Orlando? If you are on a neighborhood watch, why not call the police?

race does not need to be brougth into this case based on common sense thinking of parents and a over zealous wanna be cop

even more upsetting is kids are shot every single day, no outrage until race is involved. Let's try to end the deaths of the kids black, green, purple or white

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

See but I disagree with this point. The minute that Trayvon posed a threat to Zimmerman (beating or aggression), in FL the law was on Zimmerman's side.

Also WTF is with the news using a photo of 13-year-old Trayvon?! Have you seen the recent photo of him - he is a BIG guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

The police did not "command" him not to do it, nor did they tell him not to do it.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction in which following a man in a neighborhood one time would qualify as stalking.

Honestly, I just hate the amped-up rhetoric that both sides have used regarding this issue. It is the same post over and over again. One person says "stick to the facts" and then recites a version of the events that is shot through with assumptions and hyperbole. The other side then does the exact same thing with the opposite spin.

In the same way that walking through a neighborhood wearing a hoodie does not mean that it is OK to kill that person, following someone in a neighborhood does not mean that the self-defense doctrine should not be available to you if that person does indeed turn and start attacking you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know the media has jumped on this story and instead of being impartial have become opinionated and throw in the race aspect and boom we have a powder keg. But what if it is true that Trayvon slammed George's head to the ground and started beating him mercilessly didn't George have the right to respond with deadly force and self defense as per the law? Is this just a race based crime? I just hope this isn't another Duke situation.

I'm a lawyer with 20 years of court experience. There is NO SET OF REASONABLE FACTS to support why an unauthorized citizen, without color of law, who had a clear intent to APPREHEND an unarmed individual would then be attacked by that person. Logic dictates that the person (TM in our fact pattern) would likely flee from some raging, so-called "neighborhood watch person" and assume that they were in danger. Z set upon TM, got more than he was bargaining for in a fist fight and retaliated by shooting the boy. THAT is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. However, agree that all of this may be sadly unprovable in a court of law, especially with the incompetency level of local Florida prosecutors. Hand it over to FEDERAL PROSECUTORS and you might get a conviction here.

[Anonymous]

Neighborhood watch should call the cops not carry guns.

It's 2012 and apparently we haven't gotten far past the lynch mob.

[Anonymous]

Well, the investigating detective wanted to arrest Zimmerman that night and sought a warrant for his arrest. The State Attorney, who apparently knew Zimmerman's father, said that he would not prosecute the case. So, at the very least, the one person who conducted the preliminary investigation believed that Zimmerman should put his defense before a judge or jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He followed a pedestrian with his car and then got out of the car. He started any altercation that there was.

I disagree. Even if someone is in what appears to be a public place walking down the sidewalk, I can come up to them and say "hey, what are you doing?" That doesn't make me at fault for everything else that happens if the person attacks me. In fact, as an HOA president, I have gone up to someone parked suspiciously on our HOA property and said "hey, what are you doing here?"

Of course I think it was the WRONG thing for GZ to get out of his car and follow the guy. But, that alone does not tell us who started the physical altercation. Walking up to someone and saying "what are you doing here?" is not a good basis for responding with physical force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's still his fault. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with. 911 said don't act, he should have followed their command. If he stalked Trayvon and threatened him, Trayvon had the right to fight back. Trayvon didn't stalk him and it wouldn't have happened if this over-zealous vigilante had just waited for the police!

The police did not "command" him not to do it, nor did they tell him not to do it.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction in which following a man in a neighborhood one time would qualify as stalking.

Honestly, I just hate the amped-up rhetoric that both sides have used regarding this issue. It is the same post over and over again. One person says "stick to the facts" and then recites a version of the events that is shot through with assumptions and hyperbole. The other side then does the exact same thing with the opposite spin.

In the same way that walking through a neighborhood wearing a hoodie does not mean that it is OK to kill that person, following someone in a neighborhood does not mean that the self-defense doctrine should not be available to you if that person does indeed turn and start attacking you.

Why would that person turn and start attacking you? He was unarmed! Why would a "reasonable person" do this? The law uses a reasonable man standard, you know. It does not take into account wild irrational reactions that a crazy person might have. It is possible that Z taunted TM--said things like: what are doing here nagger! I've called the police n-gger, you better not run, etc. That could have incited TM to confront Z. Z was looking for a fight! Perhaps he got one! But he is not entitled to use deadly force in that fight unless he reasonably believed TM had a gun. There's the rub, though--in the armpit state of Florida, his belief might just have been reasonable.