Trayvon Martin Case.... the plot thickens

[-Vincenzo-]

@fiat_money

and here is something regarding your doubts concerning the validity of the evidence since no one directly saw the altercation and all these other things pointing at manslaughter are not enough since they are no "hard evidence":

Validity of circumstantial evidence

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[3] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[4] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[5] Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

If they wanted to, they could have arrested Zimmermann long time ago, the legal ground to do so is there - even in Florida.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

people do "bitch" about black on black crime...

Exactly, where the hell has that nigga been.

 

[illedout]

Funny how they saying the murderer is hispanic

when Zimmerman is clearly a jewish name..

It's German.

Means "carpenter".

Zimmerman also is a jewish name..

 

[fiat_money]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

 

[-Vincenzo-]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

Trayvon was unnarmed and you cant use deadly force just to avoid getting beat up:

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

One more question, was there blood on Zimmermann's clothes?

 

[fiat_money]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This would only apply if Zimmerman saw or thought he saw Treyvon committing a crime, snuck up on him, and shot him before Treyvon could respond; since such a case would not be self-defense.

However, the moment Zimmerman was physically attacked--even if a result of his own provocation--self-defense could come into play.

 

[-Vincenzo-]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This would only apply if Zimmerman saw or thought he saw Treyvon committing a crime, snuck up on him, and shot him before Treyvon could respond; since such a case would not be self-defense.

However, the moment Zimmerman was physically attacked--even if a result of his own provocation--self-defense could come into play.

No, it clearly states "...either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony". And moreover if there was no blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's closes the self-defense claim doesn't really hold too much weight anymore.

 

[Melanin_Enriched]

spring went from kony2012 to the curious case of treyvon and his bag of skittles.

 

[fiat_money]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This would only apply if Zimmerman saw or thought he saw Treyvon committing a crime, snuck up on him, and shot him before Treyvon could respond; since such a case would not be self-defense.

However, the moment Zimmerman was physically attacked--even if a result of his own provocation--self-defense could come into play.

No, it clearly states "...either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony". And moreover if there was no blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's closes the self-defense claim doesn't really hold too much weight anymore.

The title "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act", means that it is referring to a form of killing that is used for the sole purpose of preventing an unlawful act; the "unnecessary" means that the killer did not need to kill the suspected criminal. Self-defense is for when a person needs to or they feel that they need to kill someone in order to protect themselves from severe/fatal injury. Since there was some form o altercation in this case, self-defense comes into play.

The lack of Treyvon's blood on Zimmerman helps his case. His lawyers can say that he extent of Zimmerman's injuries (bloody nose/head) and the lack of Treyvon's pre-gunshot injuries show that the fight was one-sided; this will help them establish the claim that the only way Zimmerman felt he could defend himself was to shoot Treyvon.

 

[-Vincenzo-]

As far as I know, she had not contacted them prior to Zimmerman's interrogation; and even if she did, what she--the girlfriend of the victim--"thinks" she heard over the phone wouldn't really constitute as evidence.

However, I'm not even sure if Zimmerman's initiating of the altercation via pushing would make his later use of force unlawful under Florida law.

they could have arrested him after she has contacted them and you cant discredit a witness "just because she is his girlfriend".

Contrary to popular belief Zimmermann's lawyers do not claim the "stand your ground law" (http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/)

They claim self-defense, so here is Florida's self-defense law (which doesn't vary so much from most other western self-defense laws):

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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.[/i]

Chapter 776.041 (2) clearly states that you are not entitled to use of force if you initially provoke the force against yourself.

Following the 911 protocol of Zimmermann's call he pursued Martin wearing a firearm. His words "these assholes always get away" make it seem as if he personally wants to make sure this wont happen in this case, which is further confirmed by him continuing to pursue Martin even after the dispatcher told him to stop it. Zimmermann in the following course of the call states that Martin starts running, which makes it obvious, that Martin tries to avoid any altercation. This matches the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

After this point there are contrary claims: Zimmermann claims that Martin attacked him after an exchange of words, while Martin's girlfriend claims to have heard a sudden interrupt of Martin's speech, which she assumes was the result of Zimmemann pushing Martin.

There is enough circumstantial evidence as stated above that Zimmermann iniated the whole altercation by following Martin against request to stop this, being physically and furthermore through carrying a firearm advantageous, him stating his discontent over the fact that "these assholes" always get away, the fact that Martin ran away from him plus the testimonial of Martin's girlfriend -> Corroborating evidence

The only evidence that speaks against Zimmermann iniating the altercation is his very own testimonial.

The police hat enough ground to believe that Martin was at least victim of manslaughter commited by Zimmerman and at this stage the pure belief of the police officer that a felony was commited is enough to arrest someone.

According the the lawyer, the girlfriend only "thought" she heard Zimmerman push Treyvon; that coupled with the fact that she heard this over the phone, and that she may be biased as his girlfriend is why it doesn't really count as "evidence". However, simply her saying that it's the sound she "thought" she heard is already weak enough on its own.

The lawyer's saying that this doesn't fall under "stand your ground" law is merely a ploy to make the case it was self-defense; which is a stronger claim than "lawful force". By doing this, they can make the argument that Zimmerman was the true victim, not Treyvon.

The underlined portion of the law is what would exempt Zimmerman; as it describes, even if he provoked the altercation, if he was unable to escape after it begun and felt his life was endanger, the use of force was not unlawful.

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

This would only apply if Zimmerman saw or thought he saw Treyvon committing a crime, snuck up on him, and shot him before Treyvon could respond; since such a case would not be self-defense.

However, the moment Zimmerman was physically attacked--even if a result of his own provocation--self-defense could come into play.

No, it clearly states "...either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony". And moreover if there was no blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's closes the self-defense claim doesn't really hold too much weight anymore.

The title "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act", means that it is referring to a form of killing that is used for the sole purpose of preventing an unlawful act; the "unnecessary" means that the killer did not need to kill the suspected criminal. Self-defense is for when a person needs to or they feel that they need to kill someone in order to protect themselves from severe/fatal injury. Since there was some form o altercation in this case, self-defense comes into play.

The lack of Treyvon's blood on Zimmerman helps his case. His lawyers can say that he extent of Zimmerman's injuries (bloody nose/head) and the lack of Treyvon's pre-gunshot injuries show that the fight was one-sided; this will help them establish the claim that the only way Zimmerman felt he could defend himself was to shoot Treyvon.

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

 

[(ob)Scene]

Damn, a bloody nose & head is enough to give someone reason to fear for their life; lawfully allowing them to shoot another human being? They better not let anymore fights breakout in Florida high schools.

 

[fiat_money]

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

Since the law is quite vague, fear for his life shouldn't be too hard to claim; especially if the witness(es) confirms that he was screaming for help and considering his injuries.

If Zimmerman's clothing was properly tested, there may have been some blood mist on him. However, the main evidence of a contact gunshot would be some kind of muzzle burn or charring of clothes/flesh around the entry point; gunpowder on his skin clothing can also confirm the closeness of the shot.

If this shit goes anything like Joe Horn's case, Zimmerman should be good:

 

[In Your Moms Room]

No Justice!

 

[-Vincenzo-]

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

Since the law is quite vague, fear for his life shouldn't be too hard to claim; especially if the witness(es) confirms that he was screaming for help and considering his injuries.

If Zimmerman's clothing was properly tested, there may have been some blood mist on him. However, the main evidence of a contact gunshot would be some kind of muzzle burn or charring of clothes/flesh around the entry point; gunpowder on his skin clothing can also confirm the closeness of the shot.

If this shit goes anything like Joe Horn's case, Zimmerman should be good:

Come on fiat you can do better than that, Joe Horn defended his home against 2 grown men, this is a crystal clear case of the castle law doctrine and moreover he didnt use any racial slurs while doing so.

I dont see any relation to this case.

 

[fiat_money]

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

Since the law is quite vague, fear for his life shouldn't be too hard to claim; especially if the witness(es) confirms that he was screaming for help and considering his injuries.

If Zimmerman's clothing was properly tested, there may have been some blood mist on him. However, the main evidence of a contact gunshot would be some kind of muzzle burn or charring of clothes/flesh around the entry point; gunpowder on his skin clothing can also confirm the closeness of the shot.

If this shit goes anything like Joe Horn's case, Zimmerman should be good:

Come on fiat you can do better than that, Joe Horn defended his home against 2 grown men, this is a crystal clear case of the castle law doctrine and moreover he didnt use any racial slurs while doing so.

I dont see any relation to this case.

Joe defended his neighbor's home against two grown men, by leaving his own home to shoot them, after stating to the 911 operator that he intended to kill them; they only walked on his lawn after he confronted them.

This shows the vagueness of "self-defense" law.

Since Florida has the "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman doesn't need the "castle doctrine"; so his being attacked after confronting Treyvon is enough for him to claim he was acting in self-defense.

I never said the circumstances were related, but that I think the cases will play out similarly; meaning, unless something changes, I don't think Zimmerman will have any serious criminal charges to deal with.

A civil case from the family is likely though.

 

[-Vincenzo-]

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

Since the law is quite vague, fear for his life shouldn't be too hard to claim; especially if the witness(es) confirms that he was screaming for help and considering his injuries.

If Zimmerman's clothing was properly tested, there may have been some blood mist on him. However, the main evidence of a contact gunshot would be some kind of muzzle burn or charring of clothes/flesh around the entry point; gunpowder on his skin clothing can also confirm the closeness of the shot.

If this shit goes anything like Joe Horn's case, Zimmerman should be good:

Come on fiat you can do better than that, Joe Horn defended his home against 2 grown men, this is a crystal clear case of the castle law doctrine and moreover he didnt use any racial slurs while doing so.

I dont see any relation to this case.

Joe defended his neighbor's home against two grown men, by leaving his own home to shoot them, after stating to the 911 operator that he intended to kill them; they only walked on his lawn after he confronted them.

This shows the vagueness of "self-defense" law.

Since Florida has the "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman doesn't need the "castle doctrine"; so his being attacked after confronting Treyvon is enough for him to claim he was acting in self-defense.

I never said the circumstances were related, but that I think the cases will play out similarly; meaning, unless something changes, I don't think Zimmerman will have any serious criminal charges to deal with.

A civil case from the family is likely though.

Here is what the authors (Former Sen. Durell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley) of the law you claimed say:

If Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when he felt he was threatened by Martin, then doesn't surely an unarmed teenager have a far greater right to respond to the same "reasonable fear" when being followed by a man in an SUV carrying an automatic weapon?

That's the conclusion former Sen. Peaden has come to, especially after the release of 159 that indicate Zimmerman pursued Martin despite the dispatcher telling him to wait. He argues that Stand Your Ground is about the right to defend oneself when in imminent danger, something he doesn't see anywhere in the case.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Rep. Baxley agrees with Peaden, saying the law wasn't meant to aid those who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people."

"That is aggravating an incident right there," he concluded, arguing that Zimmerman's actions were separate from and unprotected by Stand Your Ground and similar legislation.

He lost this case when he decided to follow him, here is more on this:

According to transcripts of the 911 calls, a police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn’t need to follow the teen, but Zimmerman apparently does anyway. So is he or the teen the one who feels threatened?

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the death of the teen shot in the picturesque city of Sanford, Fla. NBC's Ron Allen reports.

“The question again is whether he (Zimmerman) acted reasonably or not. At this point it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t know what the heck happened and quite frankly no one else does either,” says Jon H. Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney, NRA-certified instructor and author of "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership."

"Florida recognizes that the danger need not be actual," said Brener. "But it must be reasonable for the person to believe that deadly force was necessary, and it must be imminent. So it's not enough to say I had an honest belief that he was going to use deadly force on me. That belief has to be reasonable."

It's that issue of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's belief that he faced a deadly threat that could offer prosecutors a path to bringing charges. Martin, of course, was carrying only a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.

I don't see him winning this one at all but let's wait and see...at the close of the play we can bump this thread

 

[fiat_money]

He must prove that he really feared for his life otherwise the level of force was unjustified, which could be quite hard considering the fact that Trayvon was on his own and unarmed. And by asking if there was blood of Trayvon on Zimmermann's clothes, I implied that there must have been some distance between the 2, which contradicts Zimmermann's claim that Martin was sitting on top of him and even more contradicts the notion that the shot was fired while the 2 were in a scuffle.

Since the law is quite vague, fear for his life shouldn't be too hard to claim; especially if the witness(es) confirms that he was screaming for help and considering his injuries.

If Zimmerman's clothing was properly tested, there may have been some blood mist on him. However, the main evidence of a contact gunshot would be some kind of muzzle burn or charring of clothes/flesh around the entry point; gunpowder on his skin clothing can also confirm the closeness of the shot.

If this shit goes anything like Joe Horn's case, Zimmerman should be good:

Come on fiat you can do better than that, Joe Horn defended his home against 2 grown men, this is a crystal clear case of the castle law doctrine and moreover he didnt use any racial slurs while doing so.

I dont see any relation to this case.

Joe defended his neighbor's home against two grown men, by leaving his own home to shoot them, after stating to the 911 operator that he intended to kill them; they only walked on his lawn after he confronted them.

This shows the vagueness of "self-defense" law.

Since Florida has the "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman doesn't need the "castle doctrine"; so his being attacked after confronting Treyvon is enough for him to claim he was acting in self-defense.

I never said the circumstances were related, but that I think the cases will play out similarly; meaning, unless something changes, I don't think Zimmerman will have any serious criminal charges to deal with.

A civil case from the family is likely though.

Here is what the authors (Former Sen. Durell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley) of the law you claimed say:

If Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when he felt he was threatened by Martin, then doesn't surely an unarmed teenager have a far greater right to respond to the same "reasonable fear" when being followed by a man in an SUV carrying an automatic weapon?

That's the conclusion former Sen. Peaden has come to, especially after the release of 159 that indicate Zimmerman pursued Martin despite the dispatcher telling him to wait. He argues that Stand Your Ground is about the right to defend oneself when in imminent danger, something he doesn't see anywhere in the case.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Rep. Baxley agrees with Peaden, saying the law wasn't meant to aid those who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people."

"That is aggravating an incident right there," he concluded, arguing that Zimmerman's actions were separate from and unprotected by Stand Your Ground and similar legislation.

He lost this case when he decided to follow him, here is more on this:

According to transcripts of the 911 calls, a police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn’t need to follow the teen, but Zimmerman apparently does anyway. So is he or the teen the one who feels threatened?

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the death of the teen shot in the picturesque city of Sanford, Fla. NBC's Ron Allen reports.

“The question again is whether he (Zimmerman) acted reasonably or not. At this point it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t know what the heck happened and quite frankly no one else does either,” says Jon H. Gutmacher, an Orlando attorney, NRA-certified instructor and author of "Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership."

"Florida recognizes that the danger need not be actual," said Brener. "But it must be reasonable for the person to believe that deadly force was necessary, and it must be imminent. So it's not enough to say I had an honest belief that he was going to use deadly force on me. That belief has to be reasonable."

It's that issue of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's belief that he faced a deadly threat that could offer prosecutors a path to bringing charges. Martin, of course, was carrying only a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.

I don't see him winning this one at all but let's wait and see...at the close of the play we can bump this thread

If they felt that way, they should've included some kind of "non pursuit" clause when they wrote the law.

As the law is presently written, one can follow someone, confront them, then kill them after the confrontation turns out unfavorably enough for them to feel their life is in danger; and they will have "stood their ground".

 

[stringer bell]

latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-poll-petition-20120326,0,2178466.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

Trayvon Martin case gives Change.org a boost -- and vice versa

Trayvon Martin's slaying has led to the single most popular petition in the history of Change.org: More than 2.2 million people have added their signatures to an online petition demanding an arrest in the case.

"It is easily the largest petition Change.org has ever seen," Megan Lubin, a spokeswoman for Change.org, told The Times. At various points, as many as 1,000 signatures were pouring in each minute. "We've never seen that before," Lubin said. "It was pretty unprecedented and a milestone for a campaign on the site."

And a new milestone is coming right up, likely helping boost the social media platform's profile even further: A rally this afternoon in Sanford, Fla., led by civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, will culminate with the Change.org signatures being presented to the Sanford City Commission. Martin's parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, are expected to attend that meeting.

The petition was started by Martin's parents on March 8. It calls for a full-fledged investigation in the case, as well as the arrest of the acknowledged shooter, George Zimmerman.

The case has sparked national outrage. Martin, 17, was unarmed and returning from a trip to buy candy at a convenience store on Feb. 26 when he was spotted and followed by a neighborhood watch captain armed with a 9-millimeter weapon, officials said.

Zimmerman had been driving his car when he called police to report a suspicious black male in the neighborhood, authorities said. A dispatcher told Zimmerman he no longer needed to follow the youth, but Zimmerman continued to do so. Martin was soon shot and killed.

Zimmerman has told police he fired in self-defense; he has not been arrested.

Adding to the furor surrounding the month-old case are new details released by police that could help support Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked by Martin. At least one eyewitness told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground and Martin striking him from above, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

A number of investigations are attempting to get to the bottom of what happened that day, including probes by the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI. A grand jury is scheduled to convene April 10.

But critics say it's all too little too late, and note that the federal authorities became involved weeks after the shooting and then only in the face of growing public protests. They want action now.

Joining the Change.org petition in taking the nation's temperature in the case is a new CNN poll that found that 73% of people questioned say Zimmerman should be arrested. The poll also found that 76% of the people questioned do not believe that neighborhood watch members should carry guns.

The survey also found that 55% of respondents approve of "stand your ground" laws that give legal protection to people who take extreme actions to defend themselves. Some believe that Florida's "stand your ground" law allowed the police to release Zimmerman without being charged.

Change.org started in 2007, and gives users a fast and easy way to start an online petition. Since then, thousands of petitions have been created. Most get little attention, but every now and then, one rises above the fray.

Lubin said she believes that Martin's petition has caught on because of public outrage -- and a desire by people to do something.

"People see Change.org as a tool," she said. "Here's a national tragedy, and it's being plastered on the TV and the Internet every night and all day long. For the first time, people are realizing they don't just have to sit there and be frustrated. They can do something."

"This is a way for people to express their support for something, and in a way that just wasn't possible 10 years ago."

Lubin said that several hundred thousand of the Martin petition signatures have come from beyond U.S. borders.

"This is one of the coolest things we've ever seen," she said. "It points directly to how social media is transforming stories like this and taking an incident and turning it into a movement."

Until the Martin case, the website's biggest petition was Create Caylee's Law, which called for legislation making failure to alert law enforcement a crime when a child has been missing for more than 24 hours. The petition stemmed from another high-profile Florida case, that one involving Casey Anthony.

Anthony was acquitted last summer of any wrongdoing in the disappearance and death of her daughter, Caylee.

 

[apocalyptica]

Like I said a few days ago, its becoming more and more apparent this was your typical thug and given the usual thug behavior I'm finding it more credible that Zimmerman was probably telling the truth that he attacked him first.

Oh yeah and he was suspended for weed possession and according to a tweet from his brother he attacked a bus driver. He doesn't seem to be a very stable young man... and probably quick to anger.

>SANFORD -- Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,” The Miami Herald has learned.

>Trayvon, who claimed that an unnamed friend had given him the jewelry, was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald.

>According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f---,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.

>Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.

>Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

>“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

 

[apocalyptica]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/trayvon-martin-trademarks-769123

Seems like the parents are seeing dollar signs