• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

Thanks for posting it. I wasn't anticipating that this happened in an area that you'd think would have more witnesses, especially since it was early at night. Would have liked to see the part before the first video started of how the confrontation started.
 
Guess that seals it, he's the victim. I'm not saying he's not totally telling the truth, but the way he told the story reminded me of John Lovitz. "yeah, that's the ticket, this is what happened next". Bottom line is we will never know the whole story, sounds like the neighbors should be his best chance at getting off.
 
Last edited:
yeah some of it sounded kinda bullshitty to me. Starting sentences with "I guess I..." and "I think I" always leave me suspicious. Seems like you would know what happened on the night you killed a guy.

Will be interesting to see how this account squares with the girlfriend's testimony.

for me - If the kid came out of the darkness confronting him, why didn't Zimmerman run like hell? I mean, run like a motherfucker and shout? Stand your ground explicitly says that you have to exhaust all means of escape.
 
WakeandBake said:
yeah some of it sounded kinda bullshitty to me. Starting sentences with "I guess I..." and "I think I" always leave me suspicious. Seems like you would know what happened on the night you killed a guy.

Will be interesting to see how this account squares with the girlfriend's testimony.

for me - If the kid came out of the darkness confronting him, why didn't Zimmerman run like hell? I mean, run like a motherfucker and shout? Stand your ground explicitly says that you have to exhaust all means of escape.
Click to expand...

That's the exact opposite of stand your ground.
 
WakeandBake said:
yeah some of it sounded kinda bullshitty to me. Starting sentences with "I guess I..." and "I think I" always leave me suspicious. Seems like you would know what happened on the night you killed a guy.

Will be interesting to see how this account squares with the girlfriend's testimony.

for me - If the kid came out of the darkness confronting him, why didn't Zimmerman run like hell? I mean, run like a motherfucker and shout? Stand your ground explicitly says that you have to exhaust all means of escape.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you remember every detail during a scrum? If you do then I salute you, sir. When the adrenaline flows and survival instinct kicks in, details tend to not matter. If anything, you should be suspicious that he remembers so much.

As for your last sentence, good luck arguing that if you're the prosecutor. He doesn't even need stand your ground in this case.
 
Les Grossman said:
That's the exact opposite of stand your ground.
Click to expand...

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php?9974-Trayvon/page41

your previous post from the Trayvon thread:

Two key instructions the jury would get in this case on this point:

1. "If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

2. "However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that he wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force."


I read 2A to mean that if Zimmerman provoked Martin (which I believe he did, by following him) that Zimmerman cannot then shoot Martin. Unless he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger (which I believe he did not, he should have run away screaming like his hair was on fire.)

When Martin allegedly said "you got a problem?" Zimmerman should not have stood there like he said and reached in his pockets looking for the phone he had just put away (and mysteriously couldn't remember in which pocket.) He should have said "No" and turned and run from him.
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
Really? Do you remember every detail during a scrum? If you do then I salute you, sir. When the adrenaline flows and survival instinct kicks in, details tend to not matter. If anything, you should be suspicious that he remembers so much.

As for your last sentence, good luck arguing that if you're the prosecutor. He doesn't even need stand your ground in this case.
Click to expand...

I remember scrums ive been in like they are in slow motion, especially in the immediate days following.
 
WakeandBake said:
I read 2A to mean that if Zimmerman provoked Martin (which I believe he did, by following him) that Zimmerman cannot then shoot Martin. Unless he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger (which I believe he did not, he should have run away screaming like his hair was on fire.)

When Martin allegedly said "you got a problem?" Zimmerman should not have stood there like he said and reached in his pockets looking for the phone he had just put away (and mysteriously couldn't remember in which pocket.) He should have said "No" and turned and run from him.
Click to expand...

You see the provocation as the act of following and not the initial verbal exchange or the punch thrown at Zimmerman, and yet you determine that the provocation really started with Trayvon confronting Zimmerman, thus Zimmerman's cue to flee. You can't have it both ways. If Zimmerman provoked Trayvon by merely following him, then Zimmerman had every opportunity to flee between the time he started following Trayvon and the time he was punched in the face.

The act of following somebody is not going to stand as the moment of provocation. There is no confrontation at that moment. No attack. You can argue that Trayvon confronting him was the moment of provocation that afforded Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, but if you argue that, then it is Trayvon who initiated the provocation and not Zimmerman. Absent that, you're left with the actual physical fight, which bodes even better for Zimmerman's case.

Trayvon's GF's call in this case I think will be largely irrelevant. We have been told that she told him to flee Zimmerman, and yet he confronted him. I find it odd that people harp on Zimmerman so much for supposedly ignoring the advice of the 911 dispatcher and yet nobody cares that Trayvon apparently ignored the advice of his GF.
 
Do we know Trayvon "confronted" him? We don't know the extent to which Trayvon could have avoided the situation. We do know Zimmerman could have not pursued him in the first place. You can't equate the two.
 
PhDeac said:
Do we know Trayvon "confronted" him? We don't know the extent to which Trayvon could have avoided the situation. We do know Zimmerman could have not pursued him in the first place. You can't equate the two.
Click to expand...

There are apparently no witnesses to the initial confrontation other than Zimmerman, like it or not. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, Trayvon confronted him. You can't infer otherwise based on what we know so far simply because you think he shouldn't have killed him or that he was a Charles Bronson wannabe.

It is true that Zimmerman could have not pursued him in the first place. It is also irrelevant. Moreover, Zimmerman's story seems to be that he did stop following him once he was told to.

I was wrong to say Trayvon's GF's call is largely irrelevant. Obviously, there is a lot of speculation as to what she was told and whether or not she heard a scuffle herself. That would be very relevant. However, I think it will be shown that the conversation did not consist of such details.
 
Zimmerman provokes Martin by following him. This is proven by Martin fleeing Zimmerman, and Zimmerman's subsequent acknowledgement of this to the dispatch when he says "I've lost him."

Zimmerman then catches up to Martin, a continuance of the provocation.

Martin verbally addresses Zimmerman, asking him if he has a problem.

Zimmerman doesn't reply with "no" and doesn't escape danger. He stands there allegedly looking for his phone in his pockets. Further continuance of the provocation.

Martin, not knowing if Zimmerman is reaching for a knife or a gun, defends himself with his fists.
 
Again, you are dealing in unsupported inferences. The only support you have is what you want to believe rather than what the police, the prosecutors, and the defense have to deal with. How can there be a provocation if one side isn't aware of it? If, for example, I am at a bar and being an obnoxious drunk, and somebody decides that they want to beat my ass, they have made that decision without my knowledge. My knowledge of it comes only at the time when he commences to beating my ass. If he confronts me first by asking if I like to get my ass beat and I pause to answer the question with, "No, thanks," I find it hard to assume that my answering that question constitutes an opportunity to flee. My answer constitutes a reasonable attempt to diffuse the situation.

Zimmerman could not reasonably assume that Trayvon was provoked by him tailing him anymore that I can assume a hot chick is aware that I'm following her in a public place just so I can watch her ass wiggle. If there was any verbalizing or non-verbal communication between them, then yes he could reasonably assume that. In this case, there is no indication that was the case and we cannot just assume that there was.

The first point in which a confrontation exists that we know about is when they actually communicate with one another. At that point, both individuals are aware that there is an issue. In the absence of anything else, all we have is Zimmerman's word. The only evidence we have in this case is Zimmerman's account. Even if Trayvon's GF contradicts his account, you have then one person contradicting the other and a stalemate at best. Both witnesses in that case would have a vested interest in opposite verdict outcomes. The ballistics and eyewitness testimony that we know about all support Zimmerman's account.

You're looking at what affords a reasonable opportunity for escape. Zimmerman's story does not provide that opportunity and again, it is the only evidence we have right now. If Trayvon confronted him with the whole clever loaded Q&A of, "Do you have a problem?...Well, you do now," then I think that speaks volumes about a conscious decision by Trayvon to confront and assault Zimmerman.

That saddest thing in Zimmerman's account are Trayvon's final words, IMO. They seemed to be the equivalent of a last minute, "Oh shit."
 
In other words, we can't assume anything besides what Zimmerman said.
 
WakeandBake said:
http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php?9974-Trayvon/page41

your previous post from the Trayvon thread:

Two key instructions the jury would get in this case on this point:

1. "If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

2. "However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

(Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that he wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force."


I read 2A to mean that if Zimmerman provoked Martin (which I believe he did, by following him) that Zimmerman cannot then shoot Martin. Unless he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger (which I believe he did not, he should have run away screaming like his hair was on fire.)

When Martin allegedly said "you got a problem?" Zimmerman should not have stood there like he said and reached in his pockets looking for the phone he had just put away (and mysteriously couldn't remember in which pocket.) He should have said "No" and turned and run from him.
Click to expand...


The part I bolded is stand your ground. Stand your ground means you have no duty to retreat.

The part you bolded is if the Defendant was the initial provoker. Then, stand your ground does not apply.

You're mixing concepts.
 
PhDeac said:
In other words, we can't assume anything besides what Zimmerman said.
Click to expand...

Yes, unless something else in the evidence suggests otherwise. We can all say, well I think THIS happened or THAT happened or Zimmerman is a murderer or whatever, but if you're sitting on the jury and you know what we know at this time, there is no way you can ship him off to prison for murder.
 
After watching Hip Hop and the LA riots on VH1 last night im nervous about the outcome of this case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top