17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[Valor]

It should be easy to corroborate or disavow the Zman account in the video. It appear he was on with dispatch all the way up to heading back to his truck. And Martin was on the phone with his gf up until the phone went dead. If Zman account in the video corresponds with the recording time of the dispatch call, more credibility to Zman. Then there's the time log of Martin's gf. If the time the gf phone went dead is about the time Zman is claiming to be punched, still inline with Zman account. But, is this account still accurate to the actual events?

Still holes for me:

- On the first pass of the sidewalk where the confrontation occurred, was Martin truly out of sight and was hiding cause he felt he was being followed?

- I recall hearing one of the neighbor's 911 call. I heard someone calling for "help" in the background. Can this neighbor corroborate there were about 50 yells for help, as Zman exclaim in the video?

- Was Martin in fear for his life? The gf has giving a statement that Martin was concerned that he was being followed. She insist he run for safety.

- During the tussle, Martin sees gun and now is truly concerned for his life and goes for it to defend himself???

The defense still has a hurdle to prove self defense was justified. Martin had a right to be on property without questioning. They were in Florida, not New York! Zman bought the dynamite to the barn fair, not Martin. Add the perjury against the wife. Challenging defense. Unless more credibility is gained for the Zman team.

"At the end of the day (trial)" hopefully humanity will do what I often advocate to my spouse, friends, staff and peers: "Get understanding before getting emotional!" A lot of people jumped on the "he's guilty and I know it" just from the MSM reporting; causing others to assume a railroad for the Zman was in progress and jumped in to defend him. All without the entire facts. This drama is still unfolding, therefore I am reserving my emotions until I get all the "understanding" of this unfortunate incident.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>
As was said most of those are not a solid indicator of impairment. Second I do not know where you got your definition but syrup afaik is codeine and is either mixed with a drink or in some cases used as a coating on a blunt. Third I have lots of experience around people who are under the influence of various drugs and from a distance it is near impossible to tell if someone is high.

Then our experiences are vastly divergent. After 25 years in fire-rescue I can tell you honestly that I can tell at a glance if someone is under the influence of any number of intoxicants and do so with a high degree of accuracy, day or night and at good distances. Admittedly some are more obvious than others. For the record I am pretty good at spotting a person in DKA, hyperkalemia or hypoglycemia as opposed to being intoxicated.

Bingo Dragonfighter, you are a trained professional; Zimmerman was not. Zimmerman was at a distance and in his vehicle when on the phone and made statements that he looked high, so without specific training, in the rain, and in his vehicle he would not be able to tell IMO. <SNIP>

Keith,

I am a trained professional (can hardly remember a time I wasn't anymore) but I also remember in high school being able to tell when someone was "high" or "not right". I would posit that since GZ said, "He looks high." that would be a fair assessment for anyone with a modicum of experience in dealing with people. Also, I can't rule out what level of training GZ had in that area. His training and what he "should've known" has been bantered back and forth here and in other outlets. So:

1) I don't know what specific training GZ had or didn't have.
AND
2) I believe it is possible to perceive someone "looks high" without specific training in differential diagnostics and at considerable distances.

In addressing Bald Eagle's list of symptoms of impairment, the response in part was:

As was said most of those are not a solid indicator of impairment.

The symptoms listed do not have to be a "solid indicator of impairment" any more than ataxia or dysphonia but are consistent with and could definitely leave the impression of impairment, even to a lay person. If a person "looks high" and I am concerned with neighborhood security or safety of the individual, the situation would certainly lend itself to closer scrutiny.

We don't know what specifically made TM "look high" but it was significant enough to be reported to 911 and, IMO, lends a great deal to GZ's state of mind. The specifics of whatever "symptoms" are, currently at least not known, and may have been pronounced. Either way, TM's history indicates that being "high" was something of a norm for TM if not at THAT particular time.

When we report a "suspicious" person, do we KNOW they are up to no good or that they "look/are acting" suspicious? Do we defer scrutiny of the "suspicious" person because we don't definitively know their motives? Now if we are verbally gifted we may be able to articulate some or most of the factors that aroused our suspicion but if we are not so gifted, "they are acting suspicious" may be the best we can do.

Whatever the level of behavioral indicators, it was significant enough for GZ to report to the 911 operator that TM "looks high". And as a nit to pick, I believe he was out of the vehicle at the time he made that assessment.

[sjfcontrol]

Well, as I indicated yesterday, I've now made a donation to the Zimmerman Defense Fund. I invite other gun-enthusiasts and those that believe in the right of self-defense to do the same.

As someone who has now put his money where his mouth is, I have an observation to make...

I must admit I am disappointed in the response of some on this board. At times, this thread has sounded more like something you might find on a Brady Campaign board, or an Al Sharpton rally, than a Gun/CHL board.

When taking the instructor's course, the first thing Sgt. Bamsch talked about was that we had joined "a community of like-minded individuals". That we were members of a group with a common cause and common beliefs -- that we had a right to defend ourselves and our families, and a right to carry a handgun to help accomplish that. And that we supported those rights not only for ourself, but for the rest of our community (and the country) as well. As a community, we were here to help and support each other.

Well, George Zimmerman is a member of this same "community". He deserves to be treated as such. We should be rallying behind him and supporting him. But instead, some of our community prefers to circle around him like sharks at feeding time. Dissecting every movement, every utterance, and leaping at any perceived fault, real or imagined -- or just plain invented. There are plenty of other people out there to accomplish that task -- as a community, we don't have to help them along. I am disappointed to see this behavior on this board. George Zimmerman deserves better from us.

And understand that the anti's follow the postings on this board. Y'all are just feeding them the ammunition they need to say, "See -- even the pro-gun people believe that carrying a gun can't be handled". They already have the guy in Houston and his instructor to point to, and you're helping set them up with yet another example. Remember, a house divided soon falls. If we battle among ourselves only the anti's win.

Shame on y'all -- you know who you are.

[Keith B]

Well, as I indicated yesterday, I've now made a donation to the Zimmerman Defense Fund. I invite other gun-enthusiasts and those that believe in the right of self-defense to do the same.

As someone who has now put his money where his mouth is, I have an observation to make...

I must admit I am disappointed in the response of some on this board. At times, this thread has sounded more like something you might find on a Brady Campaign board, or an Al Sharpton rally, than a Gun/CHL board.

When taking the instructor's course, the first thing Sgt. Bamsch talked about was that we had joined "a community of like-minded individuals". That we were members of a group with a common cause and common beliefs -- that we had a right to defend ourselves and our families, and a right to carry a handgun to help accomplish that. And that we supported those rights not only for ourself, but for the rest of our community (and the country) as well. As a community, we were here to help and support each other.

Well, George Zimmerman is a member of this same "community". He deserves to be treated as such. We should be rallying behind him and supporting him. But instead, some of our community prefers to circle around him like sharks at feeding time. Dissecting every movement, every utterance, and leaping at any perceived fault, real or imagined -- or just plain invented. There are plenty of other people out there to accomplish that task -- as a community, we don't have to help them along. I am disappointed to see this behavior on this board. George Zimmerman deserves better from us.

And understand that the anti's follow the postings on this board. Y'all are just feeding them the ammunition they need to say, "See -- even the pro-gun people believe that carrying a gun can't be handled". They already have the guy in Houston and his instructor to point to, and you're helping set them up with yet another example. Remember, a house divided soon falls. If we battle among ourselves only the anti's win.

Shame on y'all -- you know who you are.

While I admire your willingness to stand up for Zimmerman as another CHL holder, I don't have the 100% warm and fuzzy that he was totally in the green on this. Don't get me wrong, I believe that he was getting beat up by Martin and ended up defend himself to keep from getting beat down, but I am still not convinced that there was not at least a little intimidation of Martin on Zimmerman's part. I may be wrong, and if that comes out that he did not instigate the fight, then I will be the first to admit my suspicions were wrong. But until that time I will reserve total judgment on the case.

[Jusster]

Well, as I indicated yesterday, I've now made a donation to the Zimmerman Defense Fund. I invite other gun-enthusiasts and those that believe in the right of self-defense to do the same.

As someone who has now put his money where his mouth is, I have an observation to make...

I must admit I am disappointed in the response of some on this board. At times, this thread has sounded more like something you might find on a Brady Campaign board, or an Al Sharpton rally, than a Gun/CHL board.

When taking the instructor's course, the first thing Sgt. Bamsch talked about was that we had joined "a community of like-minded individuals". That we were members of a group with a common cause and common beliefs -- that we had a right to defend ourselves and our families, and a right to carry a handgun to help accomplish that. And that we supported those rights not only for ourself, but for the rest of our community (and the country) as well. As a community, we were here to help and support each other.

Well, George Zimmerman is a member of this same "community". He deserves to be treated as such. We should be rallying behind him and supporting him. But instead, some of our community prefers to circle around him like sharks at feeding time. Dissecting every movement, every utterance, and leaping at any perceived fault, real or imagined -- or just plain invented. There are plenty of other people out there to accomplish that task -- as a community, we don't have to help them along. I am disappointed to see this behavior on this board. George Zimmerman deserves better from us.

And understand that the anti's follow the postings on this board. Y'all are just feeding them the ammunition they need to say, "See -- even the pro-gun people believe that carrying a gun can't be handled". They already have the guy in Houston and his instructor to point to, and you're helping set them up with yet another example. Remember, a house divided soon falls. If we battle among ourselves only the anti's win.

Shame on y'all -- you know who you are.

So let me get this straight…..because I don’t blindly follow/support Zimmerman because he is a fellow CHL holder you accuse me and others as being an anti gunner or having some agenda? Really? Your thinking is no different than the same groups you claim to despise and right and wrong is tossed completely out the window. You seem to be on the Zimmerman bandwagon not because you believe he was justified in his actions and/or his statements are truthful, but rather because he is part of “our” community.

Based on that logic, I guess you were in full support of Raul Rodriguez too?

Too each his own…..


Jusster

[ScooterSissy]

While I admire your willingness to stand up for Zimmerman as another CHL holder, I don't have the 100% warm and fuzzy that he was totally in the green on this. Don't get me wrong, I believe that he was getting beat up by Martin and ended up defend himself to keep from getting beat down, but I am still not convinced that there was not at least a little intimidation of Martin on Zimmerman's part. I may be wrong, and if that comes out that he did not instigate the fight, then I will be the first to admit my suspicions were wrong. But until that time I will reserve total judgment on the case.

Personally, I don't feel he was "totally in the green" either, but that's not what it takes to get my support. Zimmerman did some things that I would have done differently, that doesn't mean he did anything wrong. The truth of the matter is that he had as much right to be where he was as Martin did. The line was crossed when the physical altercation took place, and we don't know the details of that because Zimmerman is the only person now who can say for sure.

So, to me the bottom line is this - does the story he's telling plausibly fit the facts? If so, then he's got my support. The answer is yes, they do, so he's got my support.

There, but for the grace of God, go any one of us. Even though our details might be different, any one of us on this forum that actually carries could be in a position where the only "proof" is our word.

[Oldgringo]

...There, but for the grace of God, go any one of us. Even though our details might be different, any one of us on this forum that actually carries could be in a position where the only "proof" is our word.

Uh uh, not me. My CHL is for the defense of me and mine. It is not a license that enables me to go look for trouble.

[ScooterSissy]

...There, but for the grace of God, go any one of us. Even though our details might be different, any one of us on this forum that actually carries could be in a position where the only "proof" is our word.

Uh uh, not me. My CHL is for the defense of me and mine. It is not a license that enables me to go look for trouble.

So, your CHL, which only for the defense of you and yours, guarantees that you will never be in a position where the only "proof" is your word? Interestesting, I might be interested in one of those.

[Oldgringo]

...There, but for the grace of God, go any one of us. Even though our details might be different, any one of us on this forum that actually carries could be in a position where the only "proof" is our word.

Uh uh, not me. My CHL is for the defense of me and mine. It is not a license that enables me to go look for trouble.

So, your CHL, which only for the defense of you and yours, guarantees that you will never be in a position where the only "proof" is your word? Interestesting, I might be interested in one of those.

Check it out, it's all in the application and who knows, you just might qualify?

[baldeagle]

My point is not whether or not Zimmerman has the right to defend himself if his head was being banged against the ground, but rather his “story” doesn’t make sense. If someone were to jump you or I under different circumstances I would definitely support a self defense claim (even with my ”ignorance of the law”). Where you and I differ and I’m sure will continue to disagree is whether or not Zimmerman had a right to claim self defense in the first place.

There is no "in the first place". Either he had a right to defend himself or he didn't. If he was being attacked (and that's what witnesses have stated), then he had the right of self defense. Whether you think it was justified or not isn't relevant. The question is, what would a reasonable person do in the same circumstances. I can assure you that this reasonable person would fire. Furthermore, even if he provoked the incident he STILL retained the right of self defense so long as he made a reasonable effort to escape, which he claims he did.

Of course Zimmerman’s character should and will be questioned to determine his motives. Just because Zimmerman has a CHL doesn’t mean that I will blindly ignore the obvious and take his word as if its gold. It’s not about a predetermined level of damage at all, it’s about the fact that his story doesn’t jive with me and is grossly inflated to give the appearance that he was somehow justified in his actions.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled. Your use of the term "grossly inflated" demonstrates that you do think there is a certain level to which the damage has to reach before self defense is justified. It's a common misunderstanding, which even some police believe, including, apparently, Detective Serino.

How about these facts. The fact that Zimmerman lied about the conversation he had with the dispatcher about being asked to "get somewhere where he could see Martin". He also lied about the reason he got out of his truck when he said it was because he was attempting to get the address. It is plain as day on the call that Zimmerman jumped out of his truck to follow Martin. Which is exactly why the dispatcher asked him if he was following him. Then there is his written statement where he says he shot him in the torso and there is no mention of the whole “I wasn’t sure if I hit him so I jumped on top of him to restrain him.” (paraphrased).

I have read his written statement and listened to every audio recording of police interviews with him. I've watched the video of his voice stress test, and I've watched the video of his walk through of the incident. His statements have been consistent throughout on the important details. He has clearly forgotten and/or remembered some of the minor details over time. You may call it lying, but I challenge you to remember every detail of a traumatic incident you experienced in precisely the same terms and language every time you are questioned about it.

Zimmerman was questioned at SPD headquarters around midnight and then again at 6AM. By that time he was clearly tired and having trouble remembering some of the details. But his description of how the attack began, how it proceeded and how it ended has been consistent throughout every interview he has had. When Detective Serino suggested that Trayvon might have videoed the incident, Zimmerman's response was, "I pray there's a video that shows what happened."

I also find it interesting that he repeatedly called Martin a suspect and after he shot him continued to attempt to apprehend him, which is “counter to everything we are taught” by the way.

That's silly. If someone was beating you and you shot them but you weren't sure they'd been hit, it would be unlikely for you to simply get up and walk away. At a minimum you would point your weapon at the attacker and tell him not to move.

But you want me to believe the rest of his statements as to why the fight started and that he didn’t provoke the situation as Martin’s girlfriend states she heard him do? His credibility is shot by his own doing lately and these tapes and written statements do not help. If is sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

Again, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Just don't misconstrue the meaning of the law. Even if someone ATTEMPTS to use deadly force on you (and beating the head certainly qualifies), you have the right to self defense.

If you’re going to toss Texas penal codes around let’s reread Sec 9.32 (a)(1) and I’ll toss back atcha Sec. 9.31 (b)(4).

I've already covered that above. Even IF you provoke someone, if you make a reasonable attempt to escape or stop the encounter, you retain the right to self defense. Zimmerman screamed "Help" for more than 40 seconds before resorting to the use of his weapon. He tried to escape by sitting up and then by squirming away from the sidewalk. A reasonable interpretation would be that he was trying to get away from the attack. Furthermore, he only drew his weapon when he realized Martin was going for it as he said, "You're going to die tonight."

Now if you have any other “facts” you’d like to point out to me to show me the error of my way’s or my “ignorance of the law” let’s be civil about it without the insults.

Jusster

The comments about the ignorance of the law were not directed at you. There has been much speculation on the internet and in the news as to whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified GIVEN HIS INJURIES. That is fallacious thinking, and it needs to be corrected.

[baldeagle]

Still holes for me:

- On the first pass of the sidewalk where the confrontation occurred, was Martin truly out of sight and was hiding cause he felt he was being followed?

Can't help you with that one.

- I recall hearing one of the neighbor's 911 call. I heard someone calling for "help" in the background. Can this neighbor corroborate there were about 50 yells for help, as Zman exclaim in the video?

It's impossible to tell. Several seconds of the call are blanked out when the neighbor is giving their name and address. From the beginning of the call to the gunshot is precisely 45 seconds, and Zimmerman is crying for help during that entire time.

- Was Martin in fear for his life? The gf has giving a statement that Martin was concerned that he was being followed. She insist he run for safety.

Can't help you with that one. According to the gf, Martin never told her that. She "could tell" he was scared.

- During the tussle, Martin sees gun and now is truly concerned for his life and goes for it to defend himself???

But, since he was the attacker, he had no right to do that.

The defense still has a hurdle to prove self defense was justified. Martin had a right to be on property without questioning. They were in Florida, not New York! Zman bought the dynamite to the barn fair, not Martin. Add the perjury against the wife. Challenging defense. Unless more credibility is gained for the Zman team.

The wife's "perjury" (if indeed it was perjury) cannot be used against Zimmerman in his trial. (Not that I'd be the least bit surprised if the prosecution tried to sneak it in somehow.) Zimmerman never perjured himself. As the judge stated, he "sat there like a potted plant" while his wife "lied".

"At the end of the day (trial)" hopefully humanity will do what I often advocate to my spouse, friends, staff and peers: "Get understanding before getting emotional!" A lot of people jumped on the "he's guilty and I know it" just from the MSM reporting; causing others to assume a railroad for the Zman was in progress and jumped in to defend him. All without the entire facts. This drama is still unfolding, therefore I am reserving my emotions until I get all the "understanding" of this unfortunate incident.

[Jusster]

Response to baldeagle:

Way too many quotes to work with so I’ll just use the numbering system……

1. I stand by what I said. Based on the evidence I have seen and the way I interpreted it I do not believe Zimmerman had the right to claim self defense. His actions leading up to the altercation, his statements about what he claims his discussion was with the dispatcher, and Martin’s girlfriends statements lead me to believe that a reasonable person would have not put themselves in that situation in the first place AND that Zimmerman was looking for a fight and got one. I disagree that even if he provoked the fight he still had the right to self defense. I would say that Martin had every right to stop Zimmerman at that point. Now if Zimmerman had ran away and Martin chased him to continue the fight I would see it differently, but just because Zimmerman claims he was no longer a threat doesn’t make it true and in fact the outcome proves that point. I see this no differently than if you or I were attacked by some thug, we get the upper hand, he screams for help then pulls out a gun and shoots you or I. You’re going to tell me that he had the right to self defense? You’re position will be that you or I had an obligation to stop our right to self defense because he now says help? We will never agree on this point. What you and I believe is reasonable are two different things.

2. Again, you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say there is a certain level of damage that must be reached before one can claim self defense. I don’t believe Zimmerman had the right to claim self defense period, for the reasons I stated above. Yes that is my opinion same as it is your opinion that you think he did based on what you believe is reasonable. As far as “grossly inflated” goes, my point was I believe Zimmerman is over exaggerating his story as to what actually occurred. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe he had the right to self defense but rather to his credibility.

3. You give him too much credit. I’m sorry but stating that the dispatcher “told” you to follow Martin is a lie. Claiming that you got out of your truck to check street signs when you admitted on the original call that you got out to follow him is a lie. That is not just some, oh I forgot, that’s a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Now as far as you stating those are minor details, he just forgot over time, and what are important details……that is YOUR opinion. You have no idea how tired he was. You can’t say for a fact that he was having trouble remembering anything, maybe he was having trouble keeping the story he wanted to tell straight. You know what they say, the truth is in the details. In written statement he “forgot” about being punched repeatedly in the face. Is that a minor detail? That’s just one example there are others. For the record, I have no problem with you stating our opinion as basically that is what everyone who comments on this thread is doing, but you are quick to criticize anyone who’s views differ from yours and dismiss their beliefs as opinions. It’s a two way street my friend.

4. That’s silly? Again, in Zimmerman’s written statement he did not mention the fact that “he thought he missed”. In fact he stated he shot him in the torso. So no, I don’t believe he actually thought he missed him. As far as what you say you think I would do, I would never try to restrain anyone I just shot. I would have shot to stop him as needed, gotten from under him and put as much distance between him and I to where I would reasonably feel safe, and called 911 again. I would not get on top of him, pin his arms down, tell witnesses not to call 911, but rather help me restrain him? Ah no….not me.

5. I don’t believe he had the right to self defense so that point is moot.

6. That is your opinion that it is a reasonable interpretation. I don’t believe starting a fight and yelling for help trumps the other person’s right to self defense as I already stated above. Martin had every right to stop Zimmerman regardless if he was yelling for help. Zimmerman was obviously still a threat.

7. Well I hope we finally cleared that up. My opinions have nothing to do with his right to use deadly force vs. his injuries. I brought up his injuries to point out that I believe he is over exaggerating the actions Martin took to defend himself from a wanna be cop who was in pursuit of “his” suspect as he repeatedly stated in his written statement. Your interpretation of the facts may differ, but that is your opinion in which of course you are entitled to and I do respect.

What it all boils down to is that you choose to believe Zimmerman’s account that Martin started the altercation and I believe it was the other way around. All of the evidence that we have so far can be used to prove this case either way. That's why we have juries and what I believe is the best judicial system in the world. Zimmerman will be judged by his peers as he should be unless he pleads out. Which if he's truly innocent why do that? Thanks to sjfcontrol, he should have plenty of funds to fight it LOL.......just kidding.


Jusster

[baldeagle]

I'm only going to address a part of one of your responses.

Response to baldeagle:I disagree that even if he provoked the fight he still had the right to self defense.

Then you disagree with the law. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Texas law is quite similar. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9.31 (b) (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

[Jusster]

I'm only going to address a part of one of your responses.

Response to baldeagle:I disagree that even if he provoked the fight he still had the right to self defense.

Then you disagree with the law. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Texas law is quite similar. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9.31 (b) (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

As I already stated in my reply to you, No, I don’t disagree with the law, I disagree with your definition of what is reasonable. I don’t believe that the force used by Martin to defend himself from Zimmerman was so great that it justified a reversal of roles. If a BG ends up with a broken nose and some scratches on his head after he attacked me that does not give him the right to use deadly force or claim self defense in my opinion. For all we know Zimmerman could have easily gotten those scratches on his head while he was attempting to fight his way from underneath Martin, not from his head being banged on the sidewalk. I don’t believe that because Zimmerman was yelling for help that he made a clear indication that he wished to withdraw from the fight. And one could argue that he was actually attempting to involve others in the fight when he asked them not to call 911 but to help him restrain Martin. After all he did continue to try to restrain Martin even after he shot him instead of attempting to remove himself from the situation which I believe a reasonable person would do if you were truly in fear of your life.

You can toss all the legal definitions out that you want, it will be up to a jury to decide what is reasonable and whether or not Zimmerman’s version of events is credible. You believe him, I don’t.


Jusster

[snatchel]

I'm only going to address a part of one of your responses.

Response to baldeagle:I disagree that even if he provoked the fight he still had the right to self defense.

Then you disagree with the law. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

Texas law is quite similar. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

9.31 (b) (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

As I already stated in my reply to you, No, I don’t disagree with the law, I disagree with your definition of what is reasonable. I don’t believe that the force used by Martin to defend himself from Zimmerman was so great that it justified a reversal of roles. If a BG ends up with a broken nose and some scratches on his head after he attacked me that does not give him the right to use deadly force or claim self defense in my opinion. For all we know Zimmerman could have easily gotten those scratches on his head while he was attempting to fight his way from underneath Martin, not from his head being banged on the sidewalk. I don’t believe that because Zimmerman was yelling for help that he made a clear indication that he wished to withdraw from the fight. And one could argue that he was actually attempting to involve others in the fight when he asked them not to call 911 but to help him restrain Martin. After all he did continue to try to restrain Martin even after he shot him instead of attempting to remove himself from the situation which I believe a reasonable person would do if you were truly in fear of your life.

You can toss all the legal definitions out that you want, it will be up to a jury to decide what is reasonable and whether or not Zimmerman’s version of events is credible. You believe him, I don’t.


Jusster

Just to add my two cents...

Both of you have valid points throughout the conversation, but Jusster- I think you might be missing a huge point.

Here is what I am heading to: The burden of proof is TM's responsibility. Zimmerman is still around to tell his side of the story, he has witnesses, written statements (though they do vary, slightly, and I can understand that details could become confused over time), and voice recordings.

And unfortunately, the evidence supports Z's side of the story. While I have my own reservations about what may or may not have went down, the actual evidence that is at our disposal says that Z acted in self defence, even if he maay or may not have had any need of being where he was to begin with.

Hypotheticals are good and great, and admittedly, you have solid reasoning, but the facts that have been presented overwhelmingly support Z.

Now, since hypotheticals are fun, what if TM happened to have survived this whole shindig and was able to provide his own testimony? That would be interesting, huh?