Thank you. I remember she was on the phone during the scuffle, but she said she heard "why are you following me" then some inaudible chatter, the phone dropped, and she couldn't hear anything and then it hung up. It's not factual that other witnesses back up the claim that GZ was the aggressor. The witnesses gave their statements to the police, I assume either they gave those reports at the hearing or the witnesses testified. I only saw the investigator, who was unable to identify the aggressor. I am not saying TM WAS the aggressor, I am just saying there is no evidence to prove he wasn't nor that GZ was. Considering the girls connection with TM the defense will destroy her credibility. I highly doubt the phone call is enough to convict him of murder. You still can't prove GZ did not have reason to fear for his life, and by you I mean the prosecution. All of the witnesses have verified they did not see who initiated contact, nor did they clearly see what was going on in the aftermath. Those of you who blaim the witnesses' changing accounts on the police...it wouldn't be the first time the police f'ked up an investigation on a technicality. If they led them to believe GZ was not the aggressor that night, but then went back and changed their mind again, they destroyed the credibility of both the investigation AND the witnesses' testimony. Does anyone else see what I see? I can plausibly see GZ being the aggressor and that he wasn't in fear of his life, but I can't prove it either way, so how can I convict him. You can't just tell the jury, trust me, this guy didn't have to kill TM, I know he wasn't in fear of his life. Well how do you know? The lacerations weren't large enough? Are you supposed to wait until the lacerations meet X-length before defending yourself.
There are other witnesses who claim Zimmerman was the aggressor. http://newsone.com/2016878/george-zimmerman-witness/ From the same article
The problem with your statement is that you assume all George did was follow Trayvon. And of course this is all because you take him at his word. I think what's most likely is that he tried to illegally detain Trayvon, who wanted to go home and had every right to do so. It doesn't make sense that a 17 year old running away from a stranger following him would start a fight while on the phone with his girlfriend but it makes perfect sense that if the stranger had convicted Trayvon in his paranoid/racist brain and that said stranger was clearly a wanna-be cop that this stranger what employ whatever means necessary to keep Trayvon from going home. You don't have the legal right to harass someone by accusing them of a crime and demanding they stay put until police arrive. If Zimmerman wasn't seeking a confrontation that night all he had to do was identify himself as a neighborhood watchman and ask where Trayvon was going. He never did identify himself, which furthers the argument that his intention that night was to employ whatever means necessary to prevent another black criminal from getting away.
You are making way more assumptions than I did. You have no idea he didn't do exactly what you said he could have done and got attacked for it. You have no idea if he even had the chance. All my statement did was contradict the one that was trying to claim if someone is following you it is legally their fault if you assault them.
I dont know if you read the entire thing, but the one i read on Yahoo stated he complained about the Sanford police department at a community meeting, stating his findings about the negligence of the department, its not like he hung out with them because they were friends
Good luck with that. Being followed is under no circumstance justification to beat someone. Being threatened is, but you have no evidence of that here. If I say "Hi wakko, I plan to kill you with this knife in my hand" sure you can come after me physically without me physically touching you, but not me simply following you. Any argument to the contrary is more of the same mindless drivel.
You have to consider TM's state of mind. You have to consider TM's state of mind. And most importantly, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER TM'S STATE OF MIND.
Sorry, got off work at 3 and ptfo. Those witnesses changed their story. The defense will argue they were manipulated by the press' coverage, which will certainly be a subject of the trial. Martin would have also looked bigger than he actually was with a hoodie on. No one was close at all to the fight, and it was very dark, your mind is easily manipulated by what you hear. They didn't have a clue until they heard all the chatter. Even with those statements, the investigators still couldn't answer definitively who started the fight or who was beating who.
You have to consider both of their state of mind. You have to consider both of their state of mind. And most importantly, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER BOTH OF THEIR STATE OF MIND. You can't ignore the other half of the story.
Depends on the situation. Per wikipedia, preemptive self-defense is "simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape." You have to look at things from TM's point of view. He was in an unfamiliar area during sunset (?), and he saw GZ sitting in his car, talking on the phone, and staring at him. This obviously freaked him out since he ran. So he tried escaping. And then he encountered GZ again, this time on foot. TM had done nothing wrong yet, as far as he's concerned, some strange man is chasing him. Looking at the situation through TM's eyes, any reasonable person would construe GZ's pursuit as an imminent threat.
Sure, let's look at GZ's most probable state of mind. He was entirely aware of the situation and calm/rational enough to call 911. I don't see how that state of mind justifies his disregard of the dispatcher's instructions and the subsequent vigilante actions.
Actually, you can. Casey was talking TM's right to preemptive self-defense. That means that TM's state of mind is relevant. GZ's is not.
Exactly, he was rational. It wasn't irrational to follow Martin, it was stupid, but not absolutely irrational. It doesn't appear he intentionally shot to kill Martin, and although his actions were "dangerous" they weren't without regard to human life. He wasn't weaving through traffic at 90 miles an hour. He was keeping his eye on a suspect while waiting for the police. He was not told to stop following, he was told it wasn't necessary. We don't know for sure who approached who. We don't know who was on top of who. We don't know how scared TM was, we don't know how scared GZ was. You still need to consider GZ's complete state of mind. The crime in the neighborhood. The previous incident when the police didn't come fast enough and the suspect got away only to return and rob the same house. He wasn't on duty with his gun, he was on the way to the store. He was protecting he neighbors. That's just the basics of where GZ was coming from. I understand TM's full state of mind, I am not actually concerned whether or not TM hit first, or approached, either way he could have made GZ fear for his life. GZ could have thought he could handle the guy, then couldn't. I just don't see how anyone could be so gung-ho against GZ when there is no clear evidence that proves he is guilty. Oh, I know. The media. And I don't get what you're saying about how you only have to look at TM's state of mind? If you mean in your particular argument about Casey's point, okay. However, if you are going to analyze this case, and you aren't considering GZ's state of mind, you are blindly throwing someone in jail without considering the circumstances. So much for innocent until proven guilty, that's rather shameful. I hope that's not what you meant.
Which he could have easily escaped. If he was so scared why not call the cops? Perhaps he was mad like his girlfriend said and he decided to beat the guy up. I doubt anyone thinks he couldn't outrun Zimmerman. Zimmerman was obviously no match in a fight either. Just because Martin is freaked doesn't mean it is reasonable to beat Zimmerman down. I am massively pro self defense, and believe that the main sticking point on concealed carry and right to bear arms arguments mostly boil down to how strongly a person feels about the right to defend yourself. Your arguments are based on large assumptions and yet still go beyond the boundaries of self defense.
I really don't. I have to consider a reasonable person's state of mind in that situation. If he acted unreasonable out of an irrational fear, that doesn't legally justify his actions. If someone from the Arkansas hills that has never seen a black guy goes to Harlem and violently flips out because they are scared to death, it doesn't matter. Just because you understand his actions, it doesn't mean they were reasonable.
Like I said before, TM already tried to escape when he saw GZ sitting in his car watching him. If he mad, he wouldn't have run away. But he did. And then TM encountered GZ on foot. There's a difference between throwing the first punch and beating someone down. Name a single unreasonable assumption I've made.
