What if George Zimmerman DID act in self defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Am I missing a fact that shows a "clear intent" to apprehend? He clearly intended to follow, but I'm not sure that he originally intended to apprehend? And what makes you conclude that Z was "raging"? And what makes you conclude that the gunshot was retaliatory? Even if the facts are as you describe them, retaliation as a motive should not necessarily be inferred.

I do NOT support Zimmerman and I believe he should be arrested and I believe that the SYG law is fundamentally flawed and that the police have committed a travesty. That being said, I do remember the Duke lacrosse situation and I do think it is important to jump to conclusions. Moreso, I think it is important not to cast anyone who acknowledges gaping holes in the known facts as some sort of racist supporter of a murderer.

Not the poster you are talking to. But I'd think that saying on tape, "f-ing coons, they always get away" and then following TM despite the strong suggestion of the 911 operator that "we don't need you to do that" would indicate a clear intent to apprehend.

[Anonymous]

The first picture is indeed Trayvon. Here's an article about the third photo, which is not.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/media-matters-honcho-sorry-after-blasting-drudge-for-trayvon-photo/

(sorry, yes, it's a Fox article)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case will never go forward because it was prosecutorial misconduct PER SE not to have arrested Z at the scene. There are no post incident photos of Z to examine. This SOB got to go home and have a xanax and go to bed. The DA made that decision. There can be no examination of his "wounds" now to determine the extent of them to see if they rose to level that would cause a person to fear for his life. Why would the DA now go back on this decision not to arrest and prosecute Z and allow a case to go forward that would expose her bad judgement? No prosecutor's office goes six weeks without arresting a key suspect and then reverses that and goes to trial, barring the revelation of some new piece of evidence. THIS CASE WILL NOT GO TO TRIAL:

#1 Because the facts are in such dispute--DA's office doesn't take high profile cases they are likely to lose--it's a political decision.
#2 Critical evidence was not collected because Z was never arrested--DA's office can't make their case.

Any amount of beating would prove that Zimmerman had just cause to use force. Again the FL statue is special. In fact, no beating has to occur to justify shooting someone else. If Trayvon posed a threat in any way (advancing toward Zimmerman) then Zimmerman could legally shoot him.
This law was passed to help women that are victims of domestic violence or rape. If a man threatens a woman she can use deadly force. He doesn't have to actually rape or assault her. Think of it that way and it makes sense.

But that is exactly what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman posed a threat. He had a gun and was pursuing TM. Zimmerman advanced towards TM. So TM would have been justified in self defence.

[Anonymous]

Y'all are talking like you know anything about what happened when y'all are clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case will never go forward because it was prosecutorial misconduct PER SE not to have arrested Z at the scene. There are no post incident photos of Z to examine. This SOB got to go home and have a xanax and go to bed. The DA made that decision. There can be no examination of his "wounds" now to determine the extent of them to see if they rose to level that would cause a person to fear for his life. Why would the DA now go back on this decision not to arrest and prosecute Z and allow a case to go forward that would expose her bad judgement? No prosecutor's office goes six weeks without arresting a key suspect and then reverses that and goes to trial, barring the revelation of some new piece of evidence. THIS CASE WILL NOT GO TO TRIAL:

#1 Because the facts are in such dispute--DA's office doesn't take high profile cases they are likely to lose--it's a political decision.
#2 Critical evidence was not collected because Z was never arrested--DA's office can't make their case.

Any amount of beating would prove that Zimmerman had just cause to use force. Again the FL statue is special. In fact, no beating has to occur to justify shooting someone else. If Trayvon posed a threat in any way (advancing toward Zimmerman) then Zimmerman could legally shoot him.

This law was passed to help women that are victims of domestic violence or rape. If a man threatens a woman she can use deadly force. He doesn't have to actually rape or assault her. Think of it that way and it makes sense.

So given this statement, why doesn't Zimmerman advancing towards Trayvon (which must have happened first, as otherwise Z would still be in his car) pose a threat to Trayvon, giving Trayvon the right to legally protect himself by beating up Z?

Which came first, chicken or the egg?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Z was chasing TM through the neighborhood! Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed? That is illogical. If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense? When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed?

When you want to find out what they're doing in the neighborhood?

If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense?

I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not prepared to take your word for it without some authority, especially given that your previous postings (if you're the same pp) have been rife with unsupported assumptions. If anything, it likely would depend in the specifics of the "chase" which, again, we don't know. Also, we we now assuming that GZ had the gun out when chasing Trayvon? How do we know that?

When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Again, read the ststute. In certain cases, a person absolutely has that right.

So basically if any potential victim fights back against an attacker, the attacker is immunized from prosecution. Great.

[Anonymous]

But that is exactly what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman posed a threat. He had a gun and was pursuing TM. Zimmerman advanced towards TM. So TM would have been justified in self defence.

And how do you know all of this? Clairvoyance, or is there actual evidence?

Also, assume all that is true. TM may have been justified in self-defense - but that doesn't mean Z is deprived of it in all circumstances. Isn't there eyewitness testimony, and corroborating physicalevidence that TM had Z on the ground, and was on top of him, hitting him? If so, that under FLorida's aggressor statute, self-defense is available to Z.

[Anonymous]

Me again - People defending Zim – ask yourself if you would feel the same way if:

The teenager was a white male
The teenager was female
The teenager was a white female

It is clear that Zim, with hostile intent – meaning his intent was the opposite of friendly – pursued this teen. Despite the suggestion of the 911 operator. With a gun in hand. Confronted the teen. Teen is dead.

Even if TM attacked Zim – I believe it was TM who acted in self defense. The kid was probably scared out of his mind. TM was the one with the right to stand his ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But that is exactly what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman posed a threat. He had a gun and was pursuing TM. Zimmerman advanced towards TM. So TM would have been justified in self defence.

And how do you know all of this? Clairvoyance, or is there actual evidence?

Also, assume all that is true. TM may have been justified in self-defense - but that doesn't mean Z is deprived of it in all circumstances. Isn't there eyewitness testimony, and corroborating physicalevidence that TM had Z on the ground, and was on top of him, hitting him? If so, that under FLorida's aggressor statute, self-defense is available to Z.

Which part do you think is in question? On the 911 tapes Zim clearly indicated he was following TM. Zim also possessed the weapon that killed TM. Which part is debatable????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case will never go forward because it was prosecutorial misconduct PER SE not to have arrested Z at the scene. There are no post incident photos of Z to examine. This SOB got to go home and have a xanax and go to bed. The DA made that decision. There can be no examination of his "wounds" now to determine the extent of them to see if they rose to level that would cause a person to fear for his life. Why would the DA now go back on this decision not to arrest and prosecute Z and allow a case to go forward that would expose her bad judgement? No prosecutor's office goes six weeks without arresting a key suspect and then reverses that and goes to trial, barring the revelation of some new piece of evidence. THIS CASE WILL NOT GO TO TRIAL:

#1 Because the facts are in such dispute--DA's office doesn't take high profile cases they are likely to lose--it's a political decision.
#2 Critical evidence was not collected because Z was never arrested--DA's office can't make their case.

Any amount of beating would prove that Zimmerman had just cause to use force. Again the FL statue is special. In fact, no beating has to occur to justify shooting someone else. If Trayvon posed a threat in any way (advancing toward Zimmerman) then Zimmerman could legally shoot him.

This law was passed to help women that are victims of domestic violence or rape. If a man threatens a woman she can use deadly force. He doesn't have to actually rape or assault her. Think of it that way and it makes sense.

No it doesn't. By your interpretation, if that woman, according to her right, punched the guy in the nose, then HE would have the right to shoot her as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all are talking like you know anything about what happened when y'all are clueless.

Do you believe that the 911 recordings that have been released are what, fake? Open to interpretation? Have you listened to them???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Because that's where his dad lives? Kids who are suspended from school and whose divorced parents live in separate cities aren't allowed to visit the other parent?

[Anonymous]

yes I have. only a fool would think that 911 call was the only evidence in this case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Z was chasing TM through the neighborhood! Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed? That is illogical. If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense? When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed?

When you want to find out what they're doing in the neighborhood?

If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense?

I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not prepared to take your word for it without some authority, especially given that your previous postings (if you're the same pp) have been rife with unsupported assumptions. If anything, it likely would depend in the specifics of the "chase" which, again, we don't know. Also, we we now assuming that GZ had the gun out when chasing Trayvon? How do we know that?

When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Again, read the ststute. In certain cases, a person absolutely has that right.

So basically if any potential victim fights back against an attacker, the attacker is immunized from prosecution. Great.

Hey, it's a shitty law. What can I tell you? The gap-toothed, inbred, NRA bought-and-paid-for Republican flunkies in the Florida legislature passed a bad law, and our most recent former President's brother signed it, continuing his family's long history of horrendous decisionmaking while the head of an executive branch. I'm not exactly shocked. But that doesn't change the fact that it is the law, and that, combined with a shoddy initial investigation, may lead to GZ getting off, depending on the facts that come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Z was chasing TM through the neighborhood! Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed? That is illogical. If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense? When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Since when do you chase a person with no intent to apprehend them, especially when you are armed?

When you want to find out what they're doing in the neighborhood?

If TM threw the first punch after being chased then, if anything TM was responding in self -defense. If you are chasing me, with a gun, and I turn around and punch you, how is that anything but self-defense?

I have no idea if this is true, but I'm not prepared to take your word for it without some authority, especially given that your previous postings (if you're the same pp) have been rife with unsupported assumptions. If anything, it likely would depend in the specifics of the "chase" which, again, we don't know. Also, we we now assuming that GZ had the gun out when chasing Trayvon? How do we know that?

When the fight continues and you are getting a beat down, you do not have the right to retaliate with a gun.

Again, read the ststute. In certain cases, a person absolutely has that right.

So basically if any potential victim fights back against an attacker, the attacker is immunized from prosecution. Great.

Yeah the law didn't account for that possibility. Only the possibility that the victim was indeed much smaller than the attacker and needed to use deadly force to save him or herself.

If Trayvon felt threatened and knew Zimmerman was following him then why was he on the phone with his girlfriend? Why wouldn't he call his parents or the police? It still just doesn't add up.

It sounds like Trayvon was startled by Zimmerman and vice versa. Zimmerman pulled the trigger thinking he was threatened when in fact he wasn't.

Unless there is proof that Zimmerman isn't innocent (e.g. the 911 tapes or a witness contradicts a part of his story) it would be hard to convict given the current law and his word against a dead-man's word.