George Zimmerman Trial

[CdnJCR]

"but his LACK of injuries to me is not a concern. I see it as very possible to have such minimal injuries, and be fearful of grave damages being inflicted."

I agree with the above but is it at all possible that either one could be fearful of the other inflicting grave damages ?

 

[crsublette]

The question was why did he not identify himself on the two opportunities he had before the event turned tragic?

Yep, innocent misrecollection.

So then, obviously, since he did not properly announce his title and description on the initial emergency call, then the obvious conclusion means he really was not a concern citizen, he did not really mean what he said about being concerned of a kid lurking around, and he was actually out to stalk and hunt the kid... This theorizing is an example of what would be called "reasonable doubt".

 

[dieselplower]

"but his LACK of injuries to me is not a concern. I see it as very possible to have such minimal injuries, and be fearful of grave damages being inflicted."

I agree with the above but is it at all possible that either one could be fearful of the other inflicting grave damages ?

Hellooooooooooooooo Martin told Zimmerman "you are going to die tonight".

 

[CdnJCR]

Yep, innocent misrecollection.

So then, obviously, since he did not properly announce his title and description on the initial emergency call, then the obvious conclusion means he really was not a concern citizen, he did not really mean what he said about being concerned of a kid lurking around, and he was actually out to stalk and hunt the kid... This theorizing is an example of what would be called "reasonable doubt".

Sorry the quote was he did not identify himself to the "punk" when he was close enough on two occasions before the fight.

As I said I believe he should get off you have reasonable doubt.

 

[crsublette]

"but his LACK of injuries to me is not a concern. I see it as very possible to have such minimal injuries, and be fearful of grave damages being inflicted."

I agree with the above but is it at all possible that either one could be fearful of the other inflicting grave damages ?

Sure, once the fight began, then you can say that... and again... that is what would be the "reasonable doubt" in this case and who actually have thrown the first punch.

Yet, supposedly on Trayvon's autopsy report, there were no blood nor damage on his body, except his roughed up knuckles which is in dispute. So, again, Zimmerman must have self inflicted his own injuries.

 

[CdnJCR]

Hellooooooooooooooo Martin told Zimmerman "you are going to die tonight".

Hello SAYS WHO the person justifying why it was ok to shoot lol

 

[crsublette]

Sorry the quote was he did not identify himself to the "punk" when he was close enough on two occasions before the fight.

As I said I believe he should get off you have reasonable doubt.

Again, innocent misrecollection.

Ugh, I feel like I share too much about myself sometimes, but, neighborhood watch folk do not always properly introduce them self and sometimes they only wear the jacket that they're supposed to wear.


Yep, I agree with ya... There is too much reasonable doubt in this case.

 

[capewind]

"but his LACK of injuries to me is not a concern. I see it as very possible to have such minimal injuries, and be fearful of grave damages being inflicted."

I agree with the above but is it at all possible that either one could be fearful of the other inflicting grave damages ?

Anything is possible, and where the instructions to the juriors is so important. We must remove emotion and think how a REASONABLE PERSON would respond to each point of the case and respond to the letter of law with the verdict.

I hate to keep using events relating to my daughters accident as examples, but my child was hurt by an idiot ... ie, a drunk driver. I want to see the law applied, but I can forgive the person for their lack in judgement and be "ok" with whatever the court decides. It is unacceptable, but a reasonable person can believe someone would drink too much and drive. It was an unfortunate event. What I can NOT accept, nor forgive, and what will have my daughter and I at every court date is the person FLED the scene of "an accident with injury", leaving my daughter ALONE, FRIGHTEND and INJURED. (The one witness of the accident chose to chase the truck, before losing the truck and returning to the accident scene.) THAT is not how a reasonable person responds. Even when we make mistakes, it is HUMAN to offer whatever aid we can. While this person was clearly intoxicated, we have three pages of police reports clearly stating this driver was able to think "rationally" and that is what changes my acceptace of the events.

 

[CdnJCR]

Under your definition every fist fight can justifiably end as a shooting as soon as one believes they are losing the fight?

Nope.

Lol he did not say that. Not even close.

"The idea that an unarmed man is not a "deadly weapon nor deadly force" with his fists... It's just amazing..."

If Charles believes and if the law agreed that fists are a deadly weapon as quoted above and you feared for your life then the law allows the use of deadly force - Yes - NO

 

[waynefrcan]

This case should have went to a Grand Jury first and it would have been thrown out. That's how innocent people can show the facts before being thrown in jail and facing court and possible 30 years in jail. Also more people would have found out the true facts. That the young black child was attacking and beating the white guy.

 

[dieselplower]

Under your definition every fist fight can justifiably end as a shooting as soon as one believes they are losing the fight?



"The idea that an unarmed man is not a "deadly weapon nor deadly force" with his fists... It's just amazing..."

If Charles believes and if the law agreed that fists are a deadly weapon as quoted above and you feared for your life then the law allows the use of deadly force - Yes - NO

It is not a yes or no question. I am 5'11 200 pounds of muscle. So me, yes. How about a 100 pound girl vs me? Her, no. Get it?

 

[dieselplower]

That the young black child was attacking and beating the white guy.

What?! Is that possible?! I thought it could only go the other way around!!!!!!!!!!

 

[crsublette]

If Charles believes and if the law agreed that fists are a deadly weapon as quoted above and you feared for your life then the law allows the use of deadly force - Yes - NO

Depends on the State and how the self defense law is written.

 

[capewind]

Under letter of law, throwing a drink at someone is an assault ... I think fists are a bit more forceful....

 

[crsublette]

In some states, you can be the one that start the fight and still use deadly force if you believe your life is threatened.

This is where expert testimony comes in. Prosecution's expert witness says it was technically not life threatening injuries. Although, the Defense's expert witness says there was reasonable force to indicate to the person would have believed Zimmerman actually was going to die.


Moral of the story. Irregardless who starts the fight, run away from the fight. Don't continue participating.

There was no evidence on the kid's body indicating the kid was trying to get away during the fight. Too much reasonable doubt.