Completely irrelevant. Zimmerman following Martin, regardless of the statement made by the dispatcher or whether is was a good idea, does not take away his right to self-defense. The only relevant questions are: 1. Did Zimmerman have a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm at the time he shot Martin? and if so 2. Did Zimmerman initiate hostilities in such a way that Martin was legally allowed to use deadly force against Zimmerman? If the answer to #1 is yes and the answer to #2 is no, then Zimmerman should be found not guilty.
Doesn't it? As stated before, even if TM threw the first punch, it can be argued that it was in self-defense since he was justifiably in fear for his safety. And if TM acted in self-defense, then wouldn't that make GM the "aggressor" which would preclude a self-defense argument? Additionally, if the screams for help (preceding the gunshot) did indeed come from TM, then that too would crush a self-defense argument. You're using the terms "serious bodily harm" and "deadly force" very loosely, especially when you consider the extent of GZ's injuries.
Why can't you people get past the "injuries" thing? I can justifiably use deadly force and not have a scratch on me.
Those facts are hard to ascertain since the other witness is dead.. Martin could conceivably have begged and pleaded for his life before Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him.
B/c it's important. If GZ is saying that the circumstances necessitated deadly force, he needs to prove it. If all he can come up with is a few scratches, a fractured nose, and other injuries that were so insignificant that they didn't warrant a hospital visit, then do you feel like that's adequate proof that deadly force was required?
No because you can't prove otherwise. Again, you have to PROVE he is guilty. He doesn't have to prove he's innocent.
I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment. We know that GZ called 911 to report suspicious behavior, was advised by the dispatcher not to follow, disregarded the dispatcher's advice, pursued TM (while armed), and ultimately killed TM. So in order to be found innocent, GZ would need to prove that he acted in self-defense.
I think you should wait until you're on the very brink of death before justifying self defense like that!
How can you prove he felt in fear of his life though? I am skeptical as you are, but how can you prove it. He has lacerations, he supposedly has a broken nose and black eyes. What realistic evidence can you get from something like this? The only other witness is dead. The witnesses changed their stories. There is physical evidence that can at least support a good deal of what Zimmerman claimed. How do you prove otherwise? Wekko... Everything you said is true, he followed TM, he didn't listen to the dispatcher's advice, and he did shoot and kill TM. However, nothing he did leading up to the actual confrontation was illegal. They went for murder, you have to prove murder. It sounds more like negligent manslaughter to me. You can't definitively prove he acted out of self-defense or not. If they can find him guilty of a lesser charge they will likely convict him of manslaughter. I still think there is no way in hell he gets convicted of murder.
If you have distaste for wusses, I'd sure hope you hold Zimmerman in very low regard. When you see a dude in your neighborhood walking home and decide to follow him and you ultimately end up getting your ass kicked as a result of something your actions precipitated, if you have any self-respect you kick the guys ass right back or take your beating like a man and follow the dispatcher's instruction the next time. Pulling out a gun and shooting someone b/c they are punching you and wrestling with you is an act of pitiful cowardice. Not a chance in hell Zimmerman would have had the balls to follow Martin without a gun. Zero. I mean the dude is a straight up loser.
The standard is what a reasonable person would believe in the same set of circumstances. If someone breaks into your home, you have every reason to think they are going to kill you if they find you. Most, if not all, would agree with this. So shooting an intruder is self-defense. But few would agree that taking a couple punches means your life is in danger, so that is not justified self-defense. A fist fight for most reasonable people does not meet that threshhold. So, Zimmerman being irrational or paranoid doesn't mean just because he personally felt threatened that self-defense was validated. It's whether the juror believes he/she SHOULD have felt fear for his life.
If Weeman is getting attacked by Anderson Silva he's good in using deadly force to prevent himself. I'm not saying Martin is an MMA fighter. But Zim is probably not much of a fighter and that will probably come up in trial. You ask well then why did he follow Martin if he's a dussy? You can't attack someone for following you. It feels like I keep repeating myself.
Simple question to the masses. Do you think there are pictures of Zimmerman with the black eyes? Is he holding them back for trial? Seems to me something would have been said to go along with the "Family" physicians report.
I think he definitely had black eyes, but that more than likely they came from the blow to the nose. It's frequently the case that as the injury settles the eyes will become black. Or if one eye gets hit both eyes can end up being being black. It's all connected through the sinuses so just because there were two black eyes it doesn't mean that he was hit in both eyes or really even one eye.
Wouldn't it be enough to just pull out the gun? Hard to believe that Trayvon wouldn't be scared as heck to see a gun pulled out. Maybe GZ was pissed he got his ass kicked so he shot him in a rage.
Martin looked very athletic and was much taller and in better shape than Zimmerman. I have no doubt that TM could whip GZ.
