• 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

WakeandBake said:
none. Following someone isn't against the law, but it is a provocation. He "induced and brought about" the incident. He "incited" an action from Martin.

He broke the law when he then shot and killed him, according to the law you posted.
Click to expand...

The law you posted indicates that Zimmerman had a lawful right to be where he was, just as Trayvon did. Therefore, the first part of the law applies.

Even if you find that Zimmerman provoked the incident, which is a stretch, then 2A would apply (I'm assuming that 2A and 2B are situations where one or the other can apply, and not where both have to apply).

The case is a no-brainer for dismissal.

Now what would be a very interesting case is if Trayvon had succeeded in wrestling away Zimmerman's gun and shot Zimmerman. Assuming the facts to be as we know them now (basically what Zimmerman's story is), how protected would Trayvon be by the stand your ground law had he killed Zimmerman? You would have a circumstance where 2A applies, but where the physical assault was initiated and apparently dominated by Trayvon. The reason Zimmerman getting his ass beat is important is because it denies him the opportunity to withdraw from the confrontation (and also gives him the fear of death). If Trayvon kills Zimmerman after dominating a fight but then becoming rightfully fearful for his life upon seeing Zimmerman's gun, how responsible would Trayvon be for withdrawing from the confrontation prior to that?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I've stated already that Zimmerman's version is THE version because Trayvon Martin is dead, like it or not. We have seen nothing that would refute Zimmerman's version of events. Therefore, what Zimmerman said happened is what we must assume happened.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Wow. So following a guy is ample excuse to justify an assault? Furthermore, the standards you apply to Zimmerman about having the opportunity to flee apparently don't apply to Trayvon.

By no reasonable standard is an assault an acceptable response to a person who thinks he is being followed. By legal standards, a provocation would be picking a fight. Trayvon did that when he confronted Zimmerman. "Do you have a problem? You do now, motherfucker." That's the fighting equivalent of the old pick-up line, "Do you have any Italian in you? Would you like some?" It indicates that Trayvon had made the decision to beat Zimmerman's ass when a reasonable person would have just walked to his destination and eaten his Skittles.

If Trayvon had lived and there had been no gun involved, Trayvon would be the one in a jail cell and not Zimmerman. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...



He didn't "think" he was being followed, he was being followed. Being followed in the night is a frightening experience, and a provocation. He has every right if this stalker gets close to defend himself.

The law says that if the defendant provoked the incident, then he cannot claim Stand Your Ground as a defense - unless he exhausts all means of escape. Zimmerman wasn't even close to exhausting all means of escape.
 
PhDeac said:
That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Absent any evidence to the contrary and with ample evidence (wounds, ballistic tests on the bullet, witnesses) to support his version, you can't throw a guy in prison simply because you're mad he was targeting an innocent black kid.
 
WakeandBake said:
He didn't "think" he was being followed, he was being followed. Being followed in the night is a frightening experience, and a provocation. He has every right if this stalker gets close to defend himself.

The law says that if the defendant provoked the incident, then he cannot claim Stand Your Ground as a defense - unless he exhausts all means of escape. Zimmerman wasn't even close to exhausting all means of escape.
Click to expand...

Defend himself against what? Being scared? Legally, there has to be an impetus to justify a physical assault and it simply doesn't exist because somebody is scared. I understand the fight or flight instinct, but unless Zimmerman was right up on his ass, I don't see the fight instinct as reasonable.

And to say Zimmerman wasn't even close to exhausting all means of escape is absurd. This is textbook self-defense. At what point during the confrontation did he have the opportunity to escape? You seem to say on one hand that when he was following him, that was his time. That's not going to fly. So you say that the point at which he was confronted by Trayvon and asked if he had a problem was the other opportunity to escape. That is also ridiculous. Where Zimmerman would have an issue is if he had the clear upper hand during the scrum that afforded him the opportunity to withdraw from the confrontation. There is no evidence that was the case.
 
ELC you are taking the words of a man trying to avoid a murder charge as the gospel. Throw out his entire statement, and the statement of the girlfriend, and look at the bare facts in the case:

Martin walking home not committing any crimes.

Zimmerman sees him and leaps to the incorrect conclusion that he is a criminal in the commission of a crime, parks, and follows him.

Martin runs and loses Zimmerman.

Zimmerman calls 911 and says "ive lost him.....they [sic] always get away"

Zimmerman pursues and there is a confrontation.

Martin punches Zimmerman

Zimmerman shoots Martin.
 
WakeandBake said:
ELC you are taking the words of a man trying to avoid a murder charge as the gospel.
Click to expand...

Absent clear evidence to the contrary, we have nothing else to go on in this case. ELC has more or less nailed the analysis on this one. It would be great if there were a bevy of witnesses, but so far that doesn't exist. And right now the evidence does tend to support Zimmerman - i.e. he was injured in an altercation. Central to his guilt or innocence is exactly how that altercation started. That didn't start when he got out of his car or when he followed Trayvon. It started when someone decided to turn it into a physical altercation - a fact that will never be clear in this case. Also central to his guilt or innocence is knowing if Zimmerman was in control of the fight right before he shot Trayvon. And that too will not be known in this case absent some piece of evidence none of us know about.
 
WakeandBake said:
none. Following someone isn't against the law, but it is a provocation. He "induced and brought about" the incident. He "incited" an action from Martin.

He broke the law when he then shot and killed him, according to the law you posted.
Click to expand...


He broke the law according to you.

I understand why you're using "provocation" in the way you are, but in my opinion it is a massive stretch legally. I dont know of any self-defense case where someone is deemed the initial provoker for legal activity. It's always physical violence or a threat. If I came up to you and called your mother a whore and you hit me, you would not be justified in the battery.

Likewise, Zimmerman followed Martin. Very stupid, we can agree. Martin then jumps out of the bushes, allegedly, looking for a fight. Martin then starts the fight. Now, we can both agree that we understand why Martin's doing this. He's scared and nervous. But, he started the illegal activity. He is then, allegedly, beating the shit out of Zimmerman and threatening he is going to kill him. He supposedly is reaching for his gun. Zimmerman is in fear for his life and he cannot escape because Martin is on top of him. His only option is to defend himself, and because he was in fear for his life, he can use deadly force.

Either way, this case should be dismissed by the judge. It's not even a close call. If the judge feels Martin initially provoked the fight through physical violence, then Zimmerman was justified in using self-defense. If the judge even feels Zimmerman initially provoked the altercation by following Martin, Zimmerman is still justified in using deadly force because Martin became the aggressor, Zimmerman was in fear for his life, and he could not escape.
 
PhDeac said:
That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Is that ridiculous because you think ELC is wrong or do you find the concept ridiculous that in murder cases when self-defense is the defense a jury must take that version as true unless the State can disprove it by other means beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
You really think the judge should dismiss this and there isn't enough evidence to go the jury? I find that in readable difficult to understand.
 
I say that because Florida has a unique process.

The Defense will ask for an immunity hearing. In other words, immunity from prosecution based upon self-defense. The judge acts as the jury and makes the factual determination of whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense. The burden at this hearing is on the defense and they only have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

That's why I think it shouldnt get to a jury. Now, I think it will because it takes a huge set of balls on a judge to do that with this much media scrutiny.
 
Les Grossman said:
Is that ridiculous because you think ELC is wrong or do you find the concept ridiculous that in murder cases when self-defense is the defense a jury must take that version as true unless the State can disprove it by other means beyond a reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

I think it's ridiculous that "innocent till proven guilty" means "true until proven false".
 
PhDeac said:
I think it's ridiculous that "innocent till proven guilty" means "true until proven false".
Click to expand...

I think it would be ridiculous if it didnt mean that. The burden should never be on the accused.
 
Right, but that doesn't mean everything the accused said should be taken as absolute truth. It should mean only that the accuser needs to come up with a strong enough case to show the accused is guilty.
 
Les Grossman said:
He broke the law according to you.

I understand why you're using "provocation" in the way you are, but in my opinion it is a massive stretch legally. I dont know of any self-defense case where someone is deemed the initial provoker for legal activity. It's always physical violence or a threat. If I came up to you and called your mother a whore and you hit me, you would not be justified in the battery.

Likewise, Zimmerman followed Martin. Very stupid, we can agree. Martin then jumps out of the bushes, allegedly, looking for a fight. Martin then starts the fight. Now, we can both agree that we understand why Martin's doing this. He's scared and nervous. But, he started the illegal activity. He is then, allegedly, beating the shit out of Zimmerman and threatening he is going to kill him. He supposedly is reaching for his gun. Zimmerman is in fear for his life and he cannot escape because Martin is on top of him. His only option is to defend himself, and because he was in fear for his life, he can use deadly force.

Either way, this case should be dismissed by the judge. It's not even a close call. If the judge feels Martin initially provoked the fight through physical violence, then Zimmerman was justified in using self-defense. If the judge even feels Zimmerman initially provoked the altercation by following Martin, Zimmerman is still justified in using deadly force because Martin became the aggressor, Zimmerman was in fear for his life, and he could not escape.
Click to expand...

maybe so, you are the legal mind not me. Im just your average everyday potential juror.

As a juror I am very careful about relying so heavily on Zimmerman's statement, and instead I focus more on the verifiable facts and evidence of the case and apply them to the law.

1) Martin was not in the act of a felony when Zimmerman began pursuit.
2) The recorded call with dispatch - Zimmerman stated he lost Martin, proving Martin fled Zimmerman. Zimmerman expressed anger and frustration to the dispatcher, illustrating state of mind.
3) Cell phone records that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend all the way up to the altercation, not an act of someone hiding in the bushes being quiet waiting to strike.
4) There was a physical altercation of some sort resulting in minor injuries to the back of the head and face of Zimmerman - none life threatening.
5) There was a shot fired between 1 and 18 inches from Martin by Zimmerman's gun.

The only evidence you are citing that Martin started the altercation is Zimmerman's statement. I understand that. The factual evidence appears to show an angry, frustrated, armed man stalking an innocent man and getting into a physical altercation with him and killing him.

If you and ELC are going to accept what Zimmerman states as fact, then what the girlfriend states must be accepted as fact as well. Hell, Zimmerman has more reason to lie than she does. He's facing prison, she is what....vengeful? talk about a stretch
 
Last edited:
Jurors aren't supposed to apply the facts to the law, they apply the law to the facts. That is a big difference and is why you are reaching a different conclusion than what the law requires.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Jurors aren't supposed to apply the facts to the law, they apply the law to the facts. That is a big difference and is why you are reaching a different conclusion than what the law requires.
Click to expand...

But is the interpretation that the law tells the jurors what the facts are and that they have to accept Zimmerman's account as fact?
 
PhDeac said:
Right, but that doesn't mean everything the accused said should be taken as absolute truth. It should mean only that the accuser needs to come up with a strong enough case to show the accused is guilty.
Click to expand...

Well, it's taken as truth until there is evidence by the State that goes to show it is not. If the State had evidence that poked a big hole in Zimmerman's story, then his whole story falls apart.

I dont see them having that here. Zimmerman says he was beaten. There's evidence to prove that. Zimmerman says he shot Martin when he was on top of him. Evidence shows Martin was shot at close range. Zimmerman says he cried for help. There's a witness who hears that (although there's a dispute between witnesses as to who it was).

To Wake and Bake's point - the evidence does NOT show beyond a reasonable doubt (to me, anyway) that Zimmerman is lying. The evidence clearly shows the following:

1. Zimmerman followed Martin
2. An altercation occurred between Zimmerman and Martin
3. Martin beat up Zimmerman to some degree
4. Zimmerman shot Martin

Zimmerman has filled in these holes:

1. Martin started the physical fight - can not be refuted
2. He was scared for his life - extremely difficult to refute, if at all.

The State has no evidence to contradict those "gaps." What they have is...Zimmerman's a shady character who followed Martin because he's a wannabe cop who is suspicious of black people. Ok. That's all well and good, but that doesnt prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense. They're assumptions, maybe even well educated guesses, but that's not enough for a conviction.
 
PhDeac said:
But is the interpretation that the law tells the jurors what the facts are and that they have to accept Zimmerman's account as fact?
Click to expand...

They wont be told they have to accept Zimmerman's account as fact. They will be told, though, if they're not sure whether Zimmerman's story is true or not - then, he's not guilty. It's only if they're certain it's NOT true that he should be found guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top