George Zimmerman 🔫
Forums › General Discussion › George Zimmerman 🔫-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Fair enough. I believe it exhibits a bias on your part but agree to disagree. Make sure you tell your teenage daughter to submit to anyone that follows her at night.There is no crime in following somebody in your neighbothood.
There is no crime in confronting someone in your neighborhood.
There is no obligation to identify oneself as a member of a neighborhood watch.
✂The crime begins when the assault begins.
To say a 17 year old male would reasonably feel his life is in danger because a "creepy ass cracker" is following him and fishing around in his pockets is a leap I cannot make.
-
Oh, and SYG does not say the crime begins when the assault begins. The threat can be real or imagined and there is no duty to retreat from a public space you lawfully occupy. Classic case of unequal application of the law...in the very same incident no less.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
I said a 17 yr old male and I didn't say anything about submitting.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Fair enough. I believe it exhibits a bias on your part but agree to disagree. Make sure you tell your teenage daughter to submit to anyone that follows her at night.There is no crime in following somebody in your neighbothood.
There is no crime in confronting someone in your neighborhood.
There is no obligation to identify oneself as a member of a neighborhood watch.
✂The crime begins when the assault begins.
To say a 17 year old male would reasonably feel his life is in danger because a "creepy ass cracker" is following him and fishing around in his pockets is a leap I cannot make.
Change the facts, change the outcome.
There are plenty of reasons a 17 yr old female would be alarmed by a strange male following her. That's not what happened here.
-
Who are you quoting with "creepy ass cracker"?
Neighbourhood watch are meant to be passive. If they see something, then they are supposed to report it to the police. The rent-a-cop is not suppose to be taking the law into his own hands in pursuit or in having an altercation with the supposed suspect. The dispatcher even said he does not need to do that. The first wrong was when he got out of his car. You still aren't addressing the most important questions. Where were the bruises and DNA on Trayvon's hands and sleeves if he did indeed do as you believe he did? Where were the defensive wounds on Zimmerman's? Why were Zimmerman's wounds so artificial in comparison to his story?
I'm serious. I'd love to hear your take on that bit.
-
Addi,
Rachel Jeantel said in her testimony that TM said to the effect "why is this creepyazz cracker following me?"
as an aside, we are told that all of Ms. Jeantel's other testimony is to be ignored, but that cracker bit must be true and has huge ramifications with regards to GZ's innocence. I couldn't make this stuff up. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
★fnord★ wrote:
Are you saying men don't rape boys as well? Why is there a differentiation between how a female and a male minor can respond to a threat? Why is it that people have this idea that a kid should know how to handle himself in this adult situation? And why are you treating it as if Trayvon's alleged mistakes are greater than GZ's? Who started this thing again?ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
There is no crime in following somebody in your neighbothood.
There is no crime in confronting someone in your neighborhood.
✂
I said a 17 yr old male and I didn't say anything about submitting.
Change the facts, change the outcome.
There are plenty of reasons a 17 yr old female would be alarmed by a strange male following her. That's not what happened here.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
I'd like to highlight this. I think this is where each side has such fundamentally different opinion on this case. How can both of them have the right to stand their ground? One of them has to be the perpetrator. Otherwise it's a lawless land. "The threat can be real or imagined..." The first real or imagined threat was Zimmerman, because its certainly also not a crime to be walking through your own neighbourhood. Seems to me the threat was very real since Trayvon is not here to tell his side.Oh, and SYG does not say the crime begins when the assault begins. The threat can be real or imagined and there is no duty to retreat from a public space you lawfully occupy. Classic case of unequal application of the law...in the very same incident no less.
-
Addi-
The "creepy ass cracker" quote comes from Rachel Jentals's (I don't think I spelled her last name right) testimony. She testified TM told her he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker."I agree it would have been better if GZ never got out of his car. However, doing so was not a crime. Nor does it mean he committed a crime afterwords.
Again, you are overstating the importance of forensic evidence. Just because there is no forensic evidence to support something doesn't mean it did not happen. However, in this case I would
Argue the preponderance of the forensic evidence supports GZ's account.Forensic evidence is helpful in establishing what and how events occurred, but not the only evidence that must be considered.
-
As for the wounds. I have seen people knocked out with a single strike. I have also seen people with multiple skull fractures who never lost consciousness or bled externally from cuts.
I've seen people assault others and have no cuts or abrasions to their hands/fists. I have seen those assaulted with little or no bruising, my mother,on the other hand, can bruise as a result of a firm handshake.
Forensic evidence is not the be all to end all.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote: ✂✂✂
✂✂✂Change the facts, change the outcome.
TM was home alone with his 14 year-old future step-brother (whom the skittles were for supposedly). Should he have led this strange man back to his home? Seriously, what would you advise a 17 year old of any either sex to do in this situation. Is it not the responsibility of the adult to make it known that their intentions are benign? This is why we only trust certain individuals to do this kind of work. And when they do, they are clearly identified as such by their uniform and shield. Only the elite among those are entitled to serve in plain clothes. GZ tried that route and came up short, so he decided to just appoint himself as a plain clothes detective. All the laws and jury decisions in the world will not change the fact that this type of behavior is the exact opposite of protecting the public safety. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Yet the Killer's word is and an eye witness that said he might have seen this or that is? It certainly was not definitive.As for the wounds. I have seen people knocked out with a single strike. I have also seen people with multiple skull fractures who never lost consciousness or bled externally from cuts.
I've seen people assault others and have no cuts or abrasions to their hands/fists. I have seen those assaulted with little or no bruising, my mother,on the other hand, can bruise as a result of a firm handshake.
Forensic evidence is not the be all to end all.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
The defense of GZ did not use Florida's stand you ground law in its arguments before the jury. It relied on self defense.Oh, and SYG does not say the crime begins when the assault begins. The threat can be real or imagined and there is no duty to retreat from a public space you lawfully occupy. Classic case of unequal application of the law...in the very same incident no less.
True that the Florida stand your ground defense does not mean an assault has to take place. However, it does require a reasonable belief that you are in danger.
An imagined assault does not cut it, you must reasonably believe you are in danger. -
★fnord★ wrote:
I never said all of her testimony is to be ignored. I was pointing out there are inconsistencies with her statements, just as you have pointed out there are inconsistencies with GZ's.Addi,
Rachel Jeantel said in her testimony that TM said to the effect "why is this creepyazz cracker following me?"
as an aside, we are told that all of Ms. Jeantel's other testimony is to be ignored, but that cracker bit must be true and has huge ramifications with regards to GZ's innocence. I couldn't make this stuff up. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote: ✂✂✂
In a case like this, with one person dead and conflicting eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence is all we have. At the very least, the forensic evidence calls into question the veracity of GZ's account of what happened. In a general sense, the forensic evidence makes his claims that he genuinely feared for his life dubious at best. Two superficial cuts on his head and a possibly broken nose? After "the raining of multiple MMA style blows" and "slamming his head into the concrete over and over again". I'm not buying it. Why the obvious deception by GZ?Forensic evidence is not the be all to end all.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
I agree it is far from definitive.
✂
Yet the Killer's word is and an eye witness that said he might have seen this or that is? It certainly was not definitive.
There are plenty of other things that could have happened.
That's why the case should never have been brought to trial. The standard of proof at trial is, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." My point is there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to 2nd degree murder as well a manslaughter. The accused does not have to prove anything. All they have to do is raise doubt. That's why I feel this prosecution was rushed to appease people, which is a corruption of our legal process. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
I never said the assault could be imagined, only that the threat could be. No need to play games here. SYG is an integral part of Florida's self defense statutes. A self-defense defense cannot be used without SYG coming into play. Before 2005 without SYG in place, GZ would have had a duty to retreat and not follow and engage TM as he did. Strange that the most influential part of the instructions given to the jury had nothing to do with the defense's case. What kind of kangaroo court does that?★fnord★ wrote: ✂✂✂
The defense of GZ did not use Florida's stand you ground law in its arguments before the jury. It relied on self defense.True that the Florida stand your ground defense does not mean✂
An imagined assault does not cut it, you must reasonably believe you are in danger. -
Not only was the language all over the jury instruction but jury members confirmed they used SYG to help make their decision.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
✂
The standard of proof at trial is, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." My point is there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to 2nd degree murder as well a manslaughter. The accused does not have to prove anything. All they have to do is raise doubt. That's why I feel this prosecution was rushed to appease people, which is a corruption of our legal process.A public outcry for justice is not by any stretch of the imagination "a corruption of the legal process" as you say. Should the family of a victim of homicide not use every resource at their disposal to seek justice? What a ridiculous thing to say. The only entity that can allow the corruption of the legal process is the legal system itself. I believe that's exactly what we've seen here. (Edited to remove jacked up blockquotes)
-
The threat cannot be imagined either. It must be reasonable. There is no need for it to actually be life threatening, only that the person could have reasonably believed it to be so.
Even before 2005 it was not
A crime to follow someone.GZ is the only living person knows who first engaged who. You are assuming GZ confronted TM, but you don't know that. If you refer to Rachel Jentel's testimony it would appear TM confronted GZ. GZ was passively following TM until TM asked him of he was following him. This also corresponds with GZ's account.
All states have self defense statutes. I think only 17 have stand your ground statutes.
The reason I suspect the GZ defense did not use the FL stand your ground statute is because there is no possiblilty to flee when your assailant is on top of you am pinning you to the ground. It that case self defense is the proper argument as opposed to the SYG statute.
-
In the world I live in: If a guy following me and eye-ball fucking me who, when confronted, refuses to identify himself and starts digging in his pockets for something, that is a clear threat. My first choice would be to get away. If my escape route was blocked by him and one side and led me past where my 14 year-old brother was alone on the other, I would have no choice to do exactly what TM is accused of doing. Period.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
The SYG jury instructions are required by Florida law to included in the jury instructions in any case involving a claim to self defense.Not only was the language all over the jury instruction but jury members confirmed they used SYG to help make their decision.
The defense did not argue that GZ had a right to stand his ground, only to self defense.
-
I fully agree that it's not a crime to follow someone. But when you ask why they are following you, they better have a damned good explanation and they better make with it quick before it leads to a misunderstanding.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Sounds like you advocate violence.I fully agree that it's not a crime to follow someone. But when you ask why they are following you, they better have a damned good explanation and they better make with it quick before it leads to a misunderstanding.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
You're right, GZ could not argue that he was standing his ground, being that he was the instigator of the confrontation. Although early in his defense that was the strategy, per the Hannity interview. SYG was also central to why the PD did not initially press charges, hence the public outcry you earlier lamented. They did a masterful job of invoking SYG when it suited them and ignoring it when it didn't★Λddi★ wrote:
The SYG jury instructions are required by Florida law to included in the jury instructions in any case involving a claim to self defense.Not only was the language all over the jury instruction but jury members confirmed they used SYG to help make their decision.
The defense did not argue that GZ had a right to stand his ground, only to self defense.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
In a case where I'm clearly being followed at night by someone in plain clothes who refuses to identify themselves or raise a white flag when I know I've done nothing wrong...you're damned right, if I can't get away I'm going to go down fighting.★fnord★ wrote:
Sounds like you advocate violence.I fully agree that it's not a crime to follow someone. But when you ask why they are following you, they better have a damned good explanation and they better make with it quick before it leads to a misunderstanding.
-
I have never argued GZ acted correctly. I only argued there is reasonable evidence to support he acted in self defense.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Hold up. Didn't you say that the case was so clearly self-defense that there was no point in charging him? Seems like you're walking that back a bit. The legal standard isn't whether or not he acted in self defense, but whether reasonable doubt existed that he didn't. That's why people wanted a trial.I have never argued GZ acted correctly. I only argued there is reasonable evidence to support he acted in self defense.
-
You can act within the law and still act incorrectly.
I don't think GZ is a choir boy. Nor do believe TM was evil. I certainly don't think he should have died that night.
I simply do not believe the evidence in the case supported a prosecution of GZ.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
The prosecution bears the burden of proof not the defense.ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
Hold up. Didn't you say that the case was so clearly self-defense that there was no point in charging him? Seems like you're walking that back a bit. The legal standard isn't whether or not he acted in self defense, but whether reasonable doubt existed that he didn't. That's why people wanted a trial.I have never argued GZ acted correctly. I only argued there is reasonable evidence to support he acted in self defense.
The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
The defense only had to raise doubt as to the defendants guilt. They do not have to prove anything.
My argument is there was enough evidence GZ acted in self defense the prosecution should not have been brought forth.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
I don't understand that, you seem to be too wrapped up in the system. As if the technicalities outweigh the crime. Now a lot of experts say they took it too far; it should have been manslaughter. I don't disagree with that. But freedom based solely on his word and with forsenic evidence not supporting his claims? (you cant convince me otherwise) His eye witness is null and void in my opinion since the witness basically said he wasn't sure what he saw but he thought he saw "this". It's crap. And hopefully he gets his in some sort of civil suit or when he goes for round two of being a vigilante.You can act within the law and still act incorrectly.
I don't think GZ is a choir boy. Nor do believe TM was evil. I certainly don't think he should have died that night.
I simply do not believe the evidence in the case supported a prosecution of GZ.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC