Trayvon Martin

[dcsnomo]

And that, under Florida law, is all that is required to prove self defense.

" However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or"

Lenny I too have plenty of problems with GZ & TM judgement & actions that rainey night & so does dcsnomo & a lot of others but not guilty of murder 2 or manslaughter. You are a fan of MMA & when a man on top is in the beat down position the ref stops the fight when heads are bouncing off the mat from blows to head. In this case GZ head was bouncing off the sidewalk while TM was beating GZ MMA style & breaking his nose. Throwing punches maybe elbows sounds like GZ lights could have gone out if it continued so he shot TM. GZ had zero defense skills & was nothing more than a punching bag for TM. One has to think what was going on in GZ mind not your or my thoughts but what did GZ think at that moment he shot. GZ thought he was about to die & might have had TM kept beating him in the head thus the not guilty verdict.

 

[dcsnomo]

In Florida, that is the case.

Fl Statute 776.012

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

so if we take push your logic to it's end we come to the conclusion than all beatings, all meaning that we don't know if you'll die or not, could be justified use of deadly force. That defies logic and is scary.

 

[dcsnomo]

But you are assuming the confrontation was inevitable!!! Why do you not hold Zimmerman responsible for being the catalyst??? Why do you absolve him of all responsibility for a stupid decision to pursue Martin? This is the USA...thug or not an innocent person has the right to walk to his home without some armed to the teeth hothead chasing him down?

How would you feel if some ******* started chasing you down the street ?? Violated? Threatened? Scared? What right does he have to do that to you?

Martin had every right to be doing what he was doing where he was doing it, and whether he was a thug or not has nothing to do with this. He has rights, like you do, to walk home without being threatened.

You guys are so supportive of Zimmerman's right to kill because he was threatened, Martin has the same right to kill Zimmerman, he felt threatened. Is it different because he was beating the crap out of him rather than using a gun?

It's simple unarmed man attacks armed man, gets upper hand. Armed man defends himself, unarmed man pays the ultimate price his own fault nobody else's. Tm was a thug that picked a fight with the wrong guy, everybody knows it including the jurors.

 

[jonesin]

But you are assuming the confrontation was inevitable!!! Why do you not hold Zimmerman responsible for being the catalyst??? Why do you absolve him of all responsibility for a stupid decision to pursue Martin? This is the USA...thug or not an innocent person has the right to walk to his home without some armed to the teeth hothead chasing him down?

How would you feel if some ******* started chasing you down the street ?? Violated? Threatened? Scared? What right does he have to do that to you?

Martin had every right to be doing what he was doing where he was doing it, and whether he was a thug or not has nothing to do with this. He has rights, like you do, to walk home without being threatened.

You guys are so supportive of Zimmerman's right to kill because he was threatened, Martin has the same right to kill Zimmerman, he felt threatened. Is it different because he was beating the crap out of him rather than using a gun?

dcsnomo
why wont you look at it from the other side? you keep saying the same thing but that doesn't make it true does it?
you keep saying that gz was the catalyst becouse he followed, but what if tm had not been sneaking around between the houses and stayed on the street, what if he hadnt ATTACKED, in our opinion he is the catalyst. dang, he could have just talked to gz and wait for the cops and he would still be alive.
and to your other point, no, being scared because someone is following you isnt the same, you could retreat, run, stand right there and talk to them but he didn't do any of those, he ATTACKED an armed man and is dead, play with fire and you might get burned.
what was that, QED or something.....

 

[eagle1]

But you are assuming the confrontation was inevitable!!! /

plain and simple, it is not illegal to follow or confront someone! (unless restraining order is involved)

Is it legal to punch someone for following you or asking what you are doing?

As to the operator telling GZ not to follow. Does a 911 operator have any authority like?

 

[jonesin]

But you are assuming the confrontation was inevitable!!! QUOTE]

plain and simple, it is not illegal to follow or confront someone! (unless restraining order is involved)

Is it legal to punch someone for following you or asking what you are doing?

As to the operator telling GZ not to follow. Does a 911 operator have any authority like?

good point and not trying to be picky, but, I believe the operator said "we dont need you to do that" not "don't do that go to your car", but I may be wrong

 

[lenny]

This has been a great debate and I have one last post. One last post not because I am mad or aggravated or anything like that. I have expressed my opinion many times in a few different ways and feel I have become redundant,,if that were possible,,,,lol,,,,!

We have civil laws that govern us and at the same time we have other laws at work that govern our conciseness such as religion. There are some laws, IMO, that are on the immoral side and the authority of man does not trump the authority of our higher power. Man has reasoned and put into law a provision that allows one to use deadly force if his or her life is threatened, even great bodily harm. This seems reasonable to me but how we interpret does not. I do not believe it is honoring God to kill each other because we may or may not get whooped in a fight. I would rather error on the side of caution and compliment the odds that I probably will not die in a altercation with a guy breaking no law, walking around in a decent community, still not dark, no immediate danger to observe. I would rather play those slim odds and not increase the odds of a death regardless of what man says. I lived 28 years on the south east side of Aurora Illinois. I had seen a lot and my brother was a cop. My best friend in Illinois is a cop so I am no stranger to what happens in society. I woke up one evening with flashing light coming through my bedroom and looking out and seeing a guy I went to high school with dead laying ina large pool of blood with a slit throat. Trust me, I have been around and lived among the scum. The odds that GZ was gonna die that evening were slim to none and just do not seem to justify deadly force, that is if you place a high value on human life. Today, a women can practice sex, (which is how one gets pregnant) discover she has a baby in her and than destroy the life if she so desires. Why would she not prevent the act of sex to prevent a pregnancy? It all boils down to self discipline, we all do what we want and manipulate the circumstances. Life is not sacred in our society and it all comes down to the decay of our society. We have no one to answer to. We are not one nation under God, we are divided, there is not liberty and justice for all.

I understand I just gave a broad description of my view but it's an intertwined and relevant. I simply to not agree that a death was justified by a scuffle, and GZ didn't have the injuries to backup his claim.

Unless someone asked me a question I'll just ride this one out and observe.

 

[Northstar]

Sean Noffke, the operator, testified on the first day of the jury trial that it is dispatchers’ policy not to give orders to callers. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic . . . not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”

I think that testimony disproves the claims that GZ was told not to leave his car. Now one could take the suggestions of a dispatcher differently then the wife's suggestion that you not stop for that beer after work.

 

[lenny]

911 call, he did follow TM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zj7qEcD8R-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ps4G5RlJdI0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b3LUd4bWBj0 listen to minute 26

 

[russholio]

armed to the teeth hothead chasing him down?

"Armed to the teeth"? Seriously? One handgun constitutes "armed to the teeth"?

How would you feel if some ******* started chasing you down the street ?? Violated? Threatened? Scared? What right does he have to do that to you?

I would feel all the adjectives you mentioned, and maybe a couple more. And I would agree that he doesn't have the right to do that to me. But, I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to turn around and confront him about it -- if anything, I'd be trying harder to put some distance between him and me.

 

[eagle1]

Life is not sacred in our society and it all comes down to the decay of our society.
.

TOTALLY agree with you Lenny!!
World has become a sad place and unfortunately its why many people carry a weapon.

For me what really made me think, was last summer in park right down the road a man in his 70's was attacked in the middle of the day by a young man for no reason. He was stabbed in the back with a butter knife.
I have no desire to be in GZ shoes, and I pray I never have to make that decision. However I also refuse to be a victim.
Good debate. I'm out also.( wasted half day just checking this thread). Lol

 

[yamahauler]

Lenny...a person doesn't need to have a scratch on them in order to use deadly force. If I was backed into a corner and a guy was coming at me with a knife, he will be eating lead before he is withing 20 ft of me.

 

[dcsnomo]

I'm also going to join with my buddy Lenny and withdraw from the discussion. It was great fun, good and lively. I am, however, becoming redundant and shall stop posting.

Thanks everybody, thanks Lenny for starting this.

Y'all be good now, I still have the delete button!!!

 

[ss440]

But you are assuming the confrontation was inevitable!!! Why do you not hold Zimmerman responsible for being the catalyst??? Why do you absolve him of all responsibility for a stupid decision to pursue Martin? This is the USA...thug or not an innocent person has the right to walk to his home without some armed to the teeth hothead chasing him down?

How would you feel if some ******* started chasing you down the street ?? Violated? Threatened? Scared? What right does he have to do that to you?

Martin had every right to be doing what he was doing where he was doing it, and whether he was a thug or not has nothing to do with this. He has rights, like you do, to walk home without being threatened.

You guys are so supportive of Zimmerman's right to kill because he was threatened, Martin has the same right to kill Zimmerman, he felt threatened. Is it different because he was beating the crap out of him rather than using a gun?

No he had the right to defend himself because he was being attacked, the bad guys become the victims way too often these days. If TM didn't attack GZ he would be alive today, no fault but his own.

 

[anonomoose]

It is sort of humorous that we are even having this discussion because a hundred years ago, there would have been no pressure to prosecute from the fear that if the prosecutors don't do something there will be riots to deal with.

Anyone who was walking around in the dark in an area where some crime has been persistent would have just been shot on sight.

Of course in those days everyone had or carried a gun for self protection, and cops or the sheriff didn't get involved any more than they had to.

Now a daz we question whether or not someone should use deadly force if attacked. Good thing our founding fathers didn't think that or we would all be far more concerned about the royal birth, and steering wheels would be on the other side of the car.

 

[jonesin]

does it seem ironic to anyone else that today we find out that last week when we were having this conversation gz helped pull a family of 4 from a burning vehicle, that guy sure has a knack for making headlines, oh, wait, I didn't see this in any headlines but it hasn't been a week yet, just sayin....

 

[jonesin]

i forgot...
what if he had been in jail
what if he had not stopped
what if he had taken a different road
what if
hahahahah, i crack myself up

 

[lenny]

what if he didn't lie,,,,he'd be in jail where he belongs

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

what if he didn't lie,,,,he'd be in jail where he belongs

And since you were there and witnessed the entire event then you would know what the true was...?

I will be da*ned if I would let somebody hit me on the off chance that "hey they will stop before I'm dead or disabled".

 

[lenny]

And since you were there and witnessed the entire event then you would know what the true was...?

I will be da*ned if I would let somebody hit me on the off chance that "hey they will stop before I'm dead or disabled".

it's reasonable to believe that you will die if you get in a fight so lets just kill em all. Your position is a "what if" just like Jonesin is saying is wrong, although I disagree with not considering a "what it," most others on here side with your position that what if you could die from an attack so lets kill them first. I understand this position and support it in the purist form but your level of threat is open to interpretation and as we see in this case, a guy is dead and it could have been prevented. I support the right to defend your life. I am not arguing that in the slightest bit.

John Good, witness #6 saw the incident all the way up to a few second before TM took the bullet. John Good was asked if he saw the man on top of the person smashing the head of the guy on the bottom and he said NO. He did say he saw blows to the head. This pic of GZ head does not show a head that had been repeatedly slammed into the concrete AND the medical examiner, Valerie Rao, testified that his GZ did not have significant injuries.

What more do you really need? Funny thing is, it doesn't really matter because the bottom line is that you do not need injuries to claim your life was in jeopardy and do you really expect GZ to say anything different now that the guy is dead. If GZ didn't say exactly what he said he would be in jail, he had to say what he did in spite of insignificant injuries.

I have not heard anyone defend TM as to his character. All have said he was a thug. Maybe he has smoked some weed, I did, Ezra does so are we thugs. I have been in fights and love to watch MMA (by the way, Anderson Silva lost) so am I a thug. I have had a cocky attitude and shrug my nose to authority so am I a thug?

You wanna know what TM was doing that day, he was playing Play Station 3 with his 15 yr old friend, Chad Joesph, who by the way wanted the skittles that GZ thought was a weapon when he called 911. Listen to the 911 call and you know right from the get go GZ had issues and was a clown posing as a responsible person. He sasy in the call something is wrong with the guy and he must be on something. He also said BEFORE TM even ran, "these assholes always get away." He also said "something is wrong with this guy." He also said, "this guy has got something", by the way, it was candy and tea. JZ made so may mistakes it's not even funny. he had a history of bogus 011 calls, he was called overly aggressive by the employer who fired him for throwing a women, also charged and convicted.

GZ has a history of calling 911, 52 times on record. He was fired from a job where he worked security. We was arrested and charged with assault on a women who was drunk at a party, he lost his job over that. He did have charges dropped over resisting arrest on a different account, dad was a judge supposedly.

So, everything GZ thought about TM, that I listed above, that evening before he killed him, was incorrect. Could it be his decision to kill TM was influenced by his incorrect perceptions of TM? It appears so. Worst part about this is that if prosecution does not present this properly that it doesn't matter.

Also, your statement proves my point to the tea WHEN YOU SAY THIS: I will be da*ned if I would let somebody hit me on the off chance that "hey they will stop before I'm dead or disabled". My point, you are willing to do what ever because of the off chance you may die REGARDLESS IF THE THREAT IS JUSTIFIED. You just said you would not let someone hit you, so you are saying you will not take a hit before you kill someone,,,nice! Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like that is what you are saying,,,correct?