Just because you've been beat up and weren't afraid for your life doesn't mean he wasn't. It's silly to apply templates to cases as if everyone has the same perceptions/feelings/fears that the victims/suspects have.
To be self defense Zimmerman could not have willingly entered a fight. He could not have unlawfully detained Martin. He could not have threatened him physically. He couldn't have brandished his weapon. After that, it isn't hard to see someone fearing for their life if a person is beating them in the face repeatedly. People get beat to death all the time. Only then would he have been justified under the law.
My point all along is that TM reasonably feared for his safety. And that's why it does fit. Correct, given those circumstances, you would've had no justification to shoot at them and use deadly force, especially since you knew their motive was to only make you scared. Sorry, but state of mind DOES matter. You saw "Batman Begins", right? Remember the scene where Katie Holmes was on the stairwell at night, and Falcone's thugs were slowly and deliberately approaching her? She didn't know they were Falcone's thugs, but she pulled out her taser. And when Batman took them down, he made a noise, and she turned around and fired her taser at him. Let's assume that Batman didn't show up, and it was a thug who made the noise. If Katie Holmes tasered the thug, would you consider that to be an assault? Keep in mind no words were spoken.
Also would like to remind you that the law doesn't require you to retreat. So GZ was within the law if he approached TM.
So Casey your statement about pre-emptive self-defense isn't true. TM could strike GZ and claim he was standing his ground.
Yeah uhh, how can you know that they guy harassing you just wants to scare you? Perhaps they have nothing else to do and they want to pull you out of the car and beat you to death. Perhaps they are screaming because they are pissed. Your self defense justifications are tarded. Of course, you can't just taser someone. What if a white women feels she is being followed by a black guy for several blocks making the same turns as her then starts to follow behind her he when she walks into her building. She has no justification to taser him, he probably freaking lives there. The fear has to be reasonable. Being followed and questioned (or even screwed at) doesn't qualify.
No he cannot. You have to be in reasonable fear of your life. Being followed and questioned doesn't meet that. Stand your ground just gets rid of the requirement for Martin to GTFO once he feared for his life. If they didn't have SYG, everyone could point out Martin had the duty to retreat no matter what Zimmerman did to him.
No you don't. Not with stand your ground. You are not required to retreat from a fight. Hypothetically speaking...if GZ was following TM, and TM approached GZ, and said why are you following me, pushed him, GZ pushed/hit back. Then a scuffle ensued, but no one was shot, the cops show up. Would TM be guilty of assault? Again hypothetically speaking...if GZ approached TM, GZ pushed TM, TM hit GZ, and a scuffle ensued. TM begins to take over the fight and slam GZ's head into the concrete (justifying a reasonable fear for his life), and GZ shoots TM, would he be guilty of murder? I don't how anyone doesn't see that this is clearly not a murder case. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT F'IN MANSLAUGHTER! Angela Corey is a moron, she tried to appease the public, who had already been distastefully manipulated by the media, and she overplayed her hand. Had she of charged him w/ manslaughter we wouldn't be here defending GZ, cause I believe he is truly guilty of that, his actions resulted in the unnecessary killing of a teen, and although he could have feared for his life, he would have been able to sensibly avoid the situation by waiting for the police. This point has been made thousands of times, but when you're dealing with a murder charge that carries much more weight, you can't look at it the same.
He referenced it 4 times. TM was in an unfamiliar neighborhood and trying to get back to his father's gf's house. It's very reasonable that after running away, he would return to the area. Hilarious. You're accusing me of not looking at the case fully without prejudice yet you're oblivious to the dialogue from the 911 call which is perhaps the most important piece of evidence. I've edited out some of the irrelevant (for the purposes of this tangent) dialogue. But you get the gist.
From what I've read, preemptive self defense doesn't require reasonable fear of life. I think you're confusing "preemptive self defense" with "deadly force". Can you provide a link supporting your interpretation? Per Wikipedia:
They both willingly enter into a fight? That kills their ability to claim self defense. If Zimmerman didn't want to fight, Martin would go to jail. Zimmerman willingly entered a fight. Not self defense. Neither of you examples have anything at all to do with SYG. Sorry.
Right so how is someone asking you "What are you doing here" the freaking point of no return? I have been saying all along, if he didn't physically threaten him, your justification is based only on following and questioning. That isn't enough. Ever. If Zimmerman did threaten him directly with violence, or brandish a weapon, then Martin punched him, that's self defense.
I don't understand what you mean by your first statement, it's reasonable he returned to the area as he was unfamiliar with it? Do you mean that he got lost? The 911 case is the most crucial piece, and excuse me for not remembering a video I watched weeks ago. I should have referenced it before responding, but I am too lazy sometimes. Regardless, if he saw him or not it doesn't mean that GZ is guilty of murder. It's hilarious that you think it's clear that GZ is guilty. I don't know if he's guilty, but I know you can't prove he is. Anything could have happened, because of the law in Florida, it doesn't matter what happened, all that matters is that they both had reasonable reason to fear one another and if the prosecution can't PROVE that he was not in fear of his life, how can they prove he is guilty of murder. PROSECUTION OVERREACHED, just admit it dude.
Willingly entering a fight does not negate your right to defend your life if the fight escalates. It would result in a manslaughter charge, NOT murder.
But you can't willingly enter into a fight then claim self defense. Which is the entire discussion. SYG doesn't apply in any event to the scenarios you mentioned.
My mind isn't made up, but it seems like yours is. You're saying which witnesses are better and which aren't. For some reason all the witnesses you believe happen to back Zimmerman. If I'm wrong and you're not saying that then I apologize, it just seemed that's what you were saying. I've said there were witnesses who said that Zimmerman was the aggressor. The only one saying Zimmerman was the aggressor who changed her mind did so after seeing both men on the news. Before that she didn't know either person and so couldn't say who was on top of the other one. Once she learned the heavier one was Zimmerman she was able to tell that he was the one on top. That isn't odd at all. Remember that initially investigators were the ones telling the witnesses they meant different people than they originally said. I've said all along there are witnesses backing both sides of the story. While it isn't conclusive it's a far cry from anyone who claims there is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor. I have yet to hear why TM would be engaged on a cell phone call while planning to ambush ZM. To me that just makes no sense. Even with that, I'm willing to wait and see if the defense has a reason for that which is in any way plausible. But for right now there is that bit of evidence in addition to witnesses that suggest GZ was the aggressor. There are witnesses that say TM was the aggressor. I wouldn't say GZ is screwed from having a self defense plea upheld, but I wouldn't say that there is no reason to believe that he could have been based on the evidence.
It applies to GZ, if he initiated contact he still could use deadly force, which seems to be everyone's only point, that GZ initiated the situation so he had no right to use deadly force, but he does via stand your ground. I was simply pointing out that if TM initiated contacted, and no one would have gotten injured he most certainly wouldn't have been guilty of assault, as he had a reason to be fearful. On the flip side, GZ had a a reason to be fearful as well. This wasn't some neighborhood watch captain trying to protect the st. from desperate housewives, this is a neighborhood with 8 recent break-ins, an previous encounters with suspects that police have been unable to apprehend. How can anyone ignore this as if it doesn't matter?
Answer me honestly. Are you trolling? B/c it sure seems like you are. I've stated MANY times that I believe that manslaughter is the proper charge. However, the prosecution has charged murder2, so I'm trying to see things from their possible point of view.
Sorry if it came across that I believed GZ was not not responsible for TM's death. It's very clear he is. I am simply trying to view this case objectively, which is near impossible the way the media covered it from the beginning. I have looked at all the evidence, considered both TM and GZ's state of mind, and reviewed the law. It seems clear to me that the evidence, the lack of consistent eyewitness testimony, and the lack of definitive forensic evidence points to a not guilty verdict. I can only comment on what all the evidence put together adds up to, maybe GZ stalked TM and planned on killing him days prior, we will never know unless he admits that. All I know is the evidence doesn't CONVINCE me he is guilty. I don't convict people of anything if I am not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and right now I see reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty of the criteria for Murder 2. I am not a legal scholar, I haven't gone to law school yet, so my opinion really means jack shiat, but I don't see anything that definitively convicts GZ of murder 2. Not guilty will be the verdict, unfortunately we won't likely see any changes in this case or even the court dates for several months : ( So I suggest we all give it a rest until something else develops, as we are wasting our time trying to convince each other when we are dealing with same evidence and nothing new.
I don't think you should be convinced. I don't think the evidence we've seen is enough to convince anyone beyond a reasonable doubt. But it's definitely enough for me to believe that all of the evidence not just what's public should be looked at. I'm not saying I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty. He definitely could be, but I'd have to see a case presented with all the evidence and defense in order to be sure. I know that it isn't premeditated he's charged with, but just for the record he only has to have planned to kill TM for 15 minutes before he did, or maybe even 5 minutes (I can't remember exactly) for it to be premeditated so it wouldn't have to be him planning to kill TM for days in advance. That's totally not relevant to this case really, I just brought it up because you mentioned the planning for days thing.
