Skip to comments.Witness: Zimmerman 'Never ... Tried To Help' Trayvon Martin
Posted on 03/25/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
click here to read article
What is this - retard day?
LOL — they’re out in force, aren’t they.
org.whodat, I am not trying to be nasty here, but you keep saying Zimmerman started the fight. Perhaps I misunderstand you...can you clarify what you mean?
“started the fight when he approached the kid and chased him.”
It cracks me up that the media ia telling it’s idiots that Zimmerman’s action was cause to beat some one.
IT’S WHAT THE MEDIA DO EVERYDAY!
I would love to see them pursue someone avoiding them, ask a question and get the beating they say they’d deserve LOL!
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. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
You are unable to read, I said you can knock anyone down with a well placed tackle, and rolling around on the ground is part of it. And the police chief of sanford is no longer in charge. He lost a no confidence vote last week. And I made no assumptions, I stated the comments of the man who wrote the law and two governors. Their comments were you cannot pursue someone and then claim stand your ground. Now if you can prove zimmerman never got out of his car, you have a point.
Are you retarded, if so, get help, other wise you maybe violating the rules here.
Ask the governor, he said the law did not cover zimmerman, are you saying he is wrong.
No, it doesn't. Two different points in time.
You say he started a fight. I said PROVE IT. You can't prove it, because your reasoning is absurdly WRONG. Get that through your head. Your assertion is WRONG.
The deceased started pummeling Zimmerman from what we know. Now, if Zimmerman had threatened him or laid a hand upon him, you would be correct. But, according to eyewitnesses, you are WRONG. Get it? Has it sunk in yet? Do you comprehend your mistaken logic?
Then you are inventing a timeline that is not supported by the known facts, therefore, you are either simply misunderstanding your position in relation to the known facts, or you are stubbornly standing by an opinion that has no bearing in reality, IMO.
In either case, I have already pointed out that it is possible that Zimmerman may have started the altercation, but the known facts at this point to not support that position. Your reasoning is completely unfounded from the viewpoint of the officers on the scene who interviewed Mr. Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses.
So, you may continue to make up your illogical fantasy scenario that has no basis in reality, or you can take a moment and analyze the reasons why most people on this forum are repeatedly attempting to explain to you the error of your thinking process.
It's up to you, wallow in your delusional world of irrationality, or open your eyes to reality. Your bleatings are disgusting in the context of this incident, IMO.
I have read local Orlando reports that indicate witnesses saw him assaulting Zimmerman prior to being shot.
There are quite a few people in my neighborhood that walk around with hoodies up (and drive cars that way too). Many of them wear their pants below their gluteus maximus. In addition to looking laughably ridiculous, they are intentionally tying themselves to a specific subculture that is associated with lots of drugs and crime. I generally assess them as thugs or wannabe gangbangers.
My survival instinct tells me to be wary of them. That instinct has served me in good stead.
“You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground, so says, the man who authored the law and the governor that signed the law and everyone that voted for the law that has been ask. Zimmerman started a fight and then murdered the kid.”
By golly, you got something there. Never mind that it’s just as reasonable (and the physical evidence and calls seems to indicate it’s more likely) to guess that Zimmerman ceased pursuit and got attacked by Martin while he was waiting for the cops to show up.
As to the guy who wrote the the “stand your ground” law, I foolishly thought it was up to the courts to decide what laws meant...otherwise you’d get politicians saying “That’s not what I meant!” whenever something they enacted turned out to be unpopular at the moment.
IF, and it’s a big IF, Zimmerman approached Martin and assaulted him, and only pulled out the gun after Martin got the upper hand in the fight, then he should pay the legal price for the killing.
If he merely followed Martin, and Martin decided the best defense is a good offense and assaulted Zimmerman to “protect himself” then Zimmerman is fully within his rights to respond with deadly force.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know.
Was Zimmerman unwise to follow Martin at all? I’d be he’d say so now, but that doesn’t make it unlawful.
It’s a sad situation all around, and now it’s more a political/racial football than a legal matter. Too bad many are rushing to judgement based on what they want to see rather than what we know. Too bad politicians like Obama aren’t showing equal outrage and concern over other violence that has recently occurred.
The Genie is out of the bottle now, and no matter how calmly and fairly the local authorities act, it’s not going to satisfy the emotions whipped up by conjecture, half-truths and political pandering.
Oh, and remember, what you read, see and hear in the media is put out by journalists with a longstanding agenda that historically isn’t exactly likely to support defensive use of a firearm.
Ridiculous. Support this statement.
Since when, in this country, are legal decisions made on the basis of "majority opinion?"
(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
Seems to me that lying on one's back and screaming for help, with an assailant atop and beating one about the face and head, satisfies this section of the code.
In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor.
You can pretend all you want that Zimmerman wasn’t on the ground getting his face beat in and his nose broken when he shot Martin, but you know that’s what happened and so does everybody else, so why don’t you stop wasting everybody’s time with your foolish attempts to cover up for Martin?
I agree with staying away - I know I do. I’m lucky enough to live where I don’t see these people. It’s still shocking to me that there is a whole culture built on wanting to be the scum of society.
Rode the BART from San Francisco into Oakland recently and watched the kids as they participated in that culture - they had to “represent” or be run over by their peers. I actually felt some sympathy for them because they are stuck in a grimy cycle and most of them know nothing else.
The press is not interested in the truth.
They are interested if fanning the flames of a race war.
During the Rodney King riots they replayed the beating tapes in an incendiary fashion to keep it going.
They used to call it yellow dog journalism.
This is nothing but pure malice with fore thought.
911 dispatchers have no police powers, they can not order a citizen to do anything and any suggestions are not lawful orders. That part of the case is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. On what basis do you assert that Zimmerman started the fight?
This is extremely simple. You seem to want Zimmerman charged with a crime.
I have repeatedly asked you to explain what crime under Florida law, and what evidence you have to support probable cause to arrest Zimmerman for that crime?
How can you guys call for someone's arrest when you cannot point out the law you claim he has broken? Is this a conservative position to take? To ignore the actual rule of law and deprive people of their liberty because of a slideshow at a community meeting?
Unfortunately, I am not. Beer cans, liquor bottles, etc. all over the place. Pills in baggies on my front lawn. One pregnant teenager after another, loaded with tats, waltzing by.
I hate it.
Zim may have had every reason to believe his life was in danger. Were you there? So many people (not necessarily you) seem to have known George Zimmerman's state of mind--amazing how the Al Sharpton mob and media have so many people suddenly able to discern George Zimmerman's motives.
Not really, the race baiters are the MSM who printpictures of Trayvon at his 14 year old best and Zimmerman at his 24 year old worst while pretending the3 neighborhood is a white enclave when in fact it is 51% minority and Zimmerman is the son of a Peruvian woman and a Caucasian male.
Well, ok...but it sounded as though the outcome would have been better if Zimmerman had not followed him. But I don’t know...from the 911 tape we only have one side of the story.
My initial reaction is that the whole thing need not have happened.
“(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
Seems to me that lying on one’s back and screaming for help, with an assailant atop and beating one about the face and head, satisfies this section of the code.
In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor. “
So much for “guilty by politician” : )
OH, so NOW the Al Sharpton mob BELIEVES a white person? I see...
Not even close. First of all the due process clause has nothing to do with self defense and second of all it isn't whether you believed Zimmermans life was in danger it is whether or not Zimmerman felt his life was in danger that renders the use of deadly force lawful. If and only if Zimmerman was not the aggressor physically.
“So, if Trayvon Martin feared for his life because he was being followed by a suspicious man, does he have the right to fight back?”
Depends. Is it a “reasonable fear?” Does the man following announce intentions and display ability to attack him?
He’s got a right to fight back if attacked, but not to fight just because he doesn’t like being followed, or doesn’t like the looks of who he is being followed by.
According to the Florida statute someone posted earlier, even if the guy following him laid a hand on him to detain him (something that hasn’t been proven, or to my knowledge, even alleged) he has to lay off when the other party indicates they want out of the fight. Easier said than done, but laws are written by people in suits who aren’t rolling around in life threatening combat.
Actually, during the King coverage, they only played part of the tape. The part where Rodney got off the ground and charged the cops was left out. Matter of fact, the Federal jury held that the part of the tape the media repeatedly showed depicted a proper use of force against a resisting suspect. The Federal jury convicted not on the use of force, but on the finding it went on too long. Strangely, the officer who administered the kick that caused the incident to become extended wasn’t tried.
You must feel like a prisoner in your own home. How awful! I suppose most of these people are living off our tax dollars in one way or another.
I hate the rats.
Pox, org is believing everything she reads in the mainstream media and hears from the Al Sharpton mob...my advice is to ignore her.
I listened to the 911 call.
The guy screaming for help has been confirmed as Zimmerman.
There is genuine fear in the yelling.
There is also plenty of room for the shooting being the last resort rather than the first when help did not come.
On the police version of the 911 call, when the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin, he said, “OK”.
It also takes a very big person to back down from public pronouncement. I think this is why each side tries to whip up people well before the real facts are known, so they can get people to stake their claim to one side or the other and to publicly say what they believe the truth is. They know that even if the truth is not as it initially seemed many will stick by the first opinion they put out there, to avoid seeming to have stupidly jumped the gun.
And that’s why I’m stepping back and trying to wait for those silly stubborn facts. I sure don’t know what happened.
Yep. But, the person who starts use of physical violence is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to being able to claim self-defense.
I think what Zimmerman's detractors hold, is that conducting foot surveillance (following) is tantamount to initiating violence; or asking for violence, etc.
They are wrong, but not persuadable.
Anyway, my point in posting the statute was to correct the impression that the law fails to take the right of self defense away from the person who starts the use of physical violence.
Very much so.
That and the inability to sell my house due to the housing market so I can improve the situation.
There are houses here that have been for sale for 3+years.
I also think the tragedy could have been avoided and make no mistake this is tragic for Martins family. I lost a brother at a young age though to an accident not a fight. But tragic doesn’t mean a crime was committed.
Many a shooting and many a gang war has happened over being
I’ve been waiting for 129 posts for someone to point out the fourth amendment limits the behavior of the government, not the individual. Thank you! You’ve renewed my faith.
Oh yes, the Liars will be out in full force.
Creative editing to get the desired outcome.
What’s your personal stake in this?
You aren’t arguing from a position of objectivity.
I've missed seeing y'all at FReeps down there since moving further into the hills, but otherwise that entire area needs flushed into the Bay.
Tell everybody tomkat says hey !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.