Evidence does not contradict this claim. It supports it. He had abrasions, lacerations, bruising, a broken nose, and black eyes.
The broken nose and black eyes do not support getting his head slammed into the concrete. It supports getting punched. So all you're left with is a few scratches on the back of the head. And if that's it, that doesn't support getting his head slammed into the concrete either.
No, I don't think it's that simple. If TM was justifiably afraid for his safety, then that would legally allow him to strike first in self-defense. And if TM was acting in self-defense, then that means that GZ would legally become "the aggressor". And when you're legally "the aggressor", you can't claim self defense. I don't care if he's guilty or not. I'm just going by the available evidence thus far. I have no horse in the race, and I like the mental challenge the case presents. And thus far, it doesn't look like GZ will escape jail time. Several people have stated that in Florida, a defendant can be found guilty of a lesser crime than the one originally charged with. I think if push comes to shove, manslaughter is much easier to prove than murder2. If this were even remotely true, the prosecution wouldn't be charging him with murder2. At the very least, there are screams for help right before the shooting (as heard on the neighbors' 911 calls). If those screams came from TM, then murder2 becomes much more likely.
I know you don't want to admit it, but the evidence DOES support his claim of self-defense. It may not be sound proof, but it's enough to suggest his claim is valid. The cuts to the back of his head are accompanied by bruising which is exactly what you would expect from having your head banged into the ground. The broken nose and black eyes also support his claim that TM was beating him. Therefore he has a reasonable claim of self-defense. The screams can not be identified. The FBI has already made that clear. Their experts attempted to and failed. He may not escape jailtime, but that's not what many people are asking for. They are demanding a murder conviction. I agree it seems more like criminally negligence manslaughter. They chose murder 2, they may not get even the manslaughter conviction since Corey reached so high for the murder 2. They can't prove who punched first. There is NO evidence to support that TM started the fight, nor that GZ started the fight.
Wrong, it doesn't matter who starts the fight. When it escalates you have the right to defend your life. Which is why manslaughter is more appropriate. If you punch me, I don't have the right to shoot you, but if you punch me repeatedly, then slam my head repeatedly into the concrete, you have at least a reasonable claim of self-defense. Doesn't matter if GZ followed TM, do you think GZ stopped TM and punched him? Based on nothing but pure speculation, I can imagine TM being afraid, asking why GZ was following him (which was heard on the phone), and then a scuffle ensued as both were in fear of each other. The problem is GZ had a gun, TM didn't. However, just because someone wasn't armed doesn't mean they weren't attacking the other. It's plausible that TM had no idea GZ had a gun tried to get away by hitting GZ repeatedly and then GZ shot him. It's not TM's fault in any way shape or form, don't get me wrong. I just don't think there is sufficient proof to suggest murder charges. I have no doubt the trial will end in a not-guilty verdict on the murder charge.
You can repeat that all you want but you can't beat someone just for following you. You can call the police, might even get them in trouble.
You're essentially arguing that a person can start a fight, and if he's losing the fight, he's legally allowed to pull out a gun and kill his opponent...
You can if you are in fear of your life. You are bogged down on the assumption that GZ started the fight anyways. We don't know who started the fight, but IF he did, yes, according to the law you can shoot someone to protect your life. That's the "stand your ground" law. You could go get in a scuffle with someone and shoot them and if there are no witnesses around to verify what happened, you can't be proven guilty, and your aggression is legally warranted. Well rather they can't prove that it WASN'T legally warranted. I know I am repeating myself, but again you have to prove Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his safety. TM being unarmed is irrelevant considering at the point of contact no one had drawn a weapon and neither knew if the other was armed or not.
Under what circumstances do I win exactly? I know for a fact you can't beat someone up for following you. To suggest otherwise is asinine.
Alright, I think I get it. You're trolling, right? You had me going for a while, but there's no way that any rational personal would believe what you just wrote.
Exception to the Use of Deadly Force Deadly Force cannot be used against: •A lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder (Unless there is a restraining order in place). •A parent who is retrieving a child or grandchild for whom they have lawful custody (Meaning you can't shoot an ex-spouse who is picking up children for the weekend and then claim they broke in.) •The person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity. •A known law enforcement officer who is engaged in a legal duty. http://www.richardhornsby.com/criminal/defenses/self-defense.html
If I can prove that the first blow can be made in self-defense, I win. If not, you win. How's that sound?
ok thank you jexclusive. Now can you establish why this is relevant? i.e., what GZ was doing that was unlawful?
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
If the prosecution can establish that GZ was legally the aggressor, then he can't use self-defense/"stand your ground" as a defense.
