ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Leo Terrell goes bat crap crazy
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did the Sanford police initially use Stand Your Ground law in their decision not to arrest Zimmerman?
Then why keep attacking Zimmerman's actions?
He was acquitted...
An initial arrest at the scene doesn't really mean much SYG or otherwise...even here in NY its not clear that under these circumstances that Zimmerman would have been charged that night. That's what investigations and grand juries are for.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Goes?Leo Terrell goes bat crap crazy
Safe enough that he lost Martin. Martin is the one that then closed the distance
According to Martins girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin that's what happenedIs that what actually happened? Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to; Martin is dead and cannot rebut and so far as I know, there were no reliable witnesses who actually saw the whole thing from beginning to end.
Maybe it is what happened, maybe it isn't. Doesn't matter now. Trial's done, Zimmerman is free, and people who are upset by the verdict are going to be upset regardless.
According to Martins girlfriend who was on the phone with Martin that's what happened
Of course Zimmerman had a reason. A deranged guy stalking a woman is stalking her for a reason; she's his intended victim. Phrasing it as you do implies that Martin was actually doing something suspecious, and I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument to support. Most of his actions sound consistent with someone finding that they're being followed by someone they don't know.There is no proof, that Martin was being followed for "no reason".
Great post! I find it disturbing that people want to line up behind Zimmerman and treat him like some kind of SD hero. He isn't. It's just as inaccurate as the portrayal of Martin as daddy's little angel.Not actually a witness. I think everyone is agreeing the murder charge was off-base and the manslaughter charge at the very least wasn't proven, but the only surviving eyewitness to the events was biased to one side. It may well have been as simple as he said--but one can imagine other scenarios, including even just a fuller understanding of TM's mindset at the time, that would change one's views of each side's degree of moral culpability.
Of course Zimmerman had a reason. A deranged guy stalking a woman is stalking her for a reason; she's his intended victim. Phrasing it as you do implies that Martin was actually doing something suspecious, and I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument to support. Most of his actions sound consistent with someone finding that they're being followed by someone they don't know.
So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason. What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."
So I'm sure Zimmerman had a reason. What that reason was or whether or not it was a good reason is anyone's guess, as we only have his side to go on and as Arnisador said, "He was on trial for murder. I would expect him to describe events in the most favorable light for himself."
In 2005 the Florida legislator enacted statute 776.032. “Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.” This immunity statute is often erroneously referred to as Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground (SYG) law, even by lawyers, judges, and law professors who ought to know better (MSM journalists I forgive for such errors, as their profession fairly demands ignorance). In fact, SYG is a different statute entirely, 776.013(3).
The Bottom Line
The bottom line, then, is that in Florida a defendant’s motion for self-defense immunity can be made at any time in a hearing before the relevant court, and the standard of evidence for acknowledging immunity is that of a preponderance of the evidence–if it is more likely than not that the use of defensive force was lawful, immunity attaches.
In the case of George Zimmerman, Mark O’Mara clearly understood this criteria for attaching immunity, and similarly would have been well aware that the facts in evidence overwhelming supported a finding of immunity. His decision to forego the pre-trial immunity (not ”Stand-your-Ground” hearing was strategic, not legal, in nature, and a consequence of the massive disinformation campaign and political wars being waged around the trial.
I don't.Don't confuse "reason" with "reasonable". Stalking a woman is an illegitimate and unreasonable act.
Following someone in your gated community who you don't recognize, who is walking through areas not usual (then running), and in light of recent vandalism/property crimes...is not "unreasonable".
Yes, reasonableness that cannot be established due to no eye witnesses. Martin's actions against Zimmerman may have been reasonable too. I'm not implying that they are; only that his account of his actions and his reasoning behind them are unavailable due to his not surviving the conflict.This is why self-defense and LE shoots are judged based on a persons "reasonableness" at the moment of the incident, not on facts discovered long after the fact.
The whole thing is mythology. Nobody saw anything prior to Martin and Zimmerman fighting. How Zimmerman was following Martin is unknowable unless Zimmerman gave some indication as to what he was actually doing.There is a myth starting up in this case. The prosecutors were going to try to say that Zimmerman followed Martin with the gun in his hand...unfortunately, I am hearing more and more people stating this as fact in some of the threads and conversations I follow. This was never presented in court, and was never mentioned anywhere else by the prosecutor until after the trial when they began talking to the media...it is however beginning to be a part of the anti-Zimmerman mythology.
According to the transcript, he ignored the 911 operator's instructions.
Andrew Branca: “Well, I certainly agree with that, and I’d like to talk to that. But before we do , I’ve been listening to the show on hold while it’s been going on, and I hear a lot of discussion about how Florida has this crazy stand-your-ground law that creates these unique legal scenarios. The fact is Florida’s stand-your-ground law is quite common, 33 states are effectively SYG states and have very similar provisions. In fact there is one state that not only lets you to stand your ground, it explicitly allows you to pursue your assailant if necessary for your safety. And that state is California [where the station is located].
The only thing that we know for certain is that Zimmerman decided to follow Martin for some nebulous reason, against advice from the 911 operator if I recall, and that he had a vehicle and was armed with a pistol while Martin was unarmed. There was a scuffle and blows were traded, and Zimmerman discharged his firearm killing Martin. Everything else is speculation.