Florida police attempting to cover up the shooting of a 17 year old.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by mgguy

No, but if he was hitting Z and slamming his head into the cement, that would justify it.

What if Zimmerman pulled his gun on him and hitting him and slamming his head on the ground was the response?

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Being stalked, however, would certainly give Martin a reason to fear for his safety. And if he was in fear than he certainly would have a right to stand his ground.

Fixed that for you.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

which is exactly what he did according to his girlfriend who was on the phone with him at the time

Yeh, but we have no idea what he did after that, you cant punch someone right after you ask them why they are following you either.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Yeh, but we have no idea what he did after that, you cant punch someone right after you ask them why they are following you either.

yes, depends on what they do after you ask them......what if Zimmerman tackled him so he couldn't get away again before the police arrived?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Yeh, but we have no idea what he did after that, you cant punch someone right after you ask them why they are following you either.

If you feared for your safety, why not?

Stand your ground.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

If you feared for your safety, why not?

Stand your ground.

It has to be a reasonable fear. Someone asking you what you are doing when you aren't a resident of the area isn't enough to provoke that. Does anyone know what time this went down?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

It has to be a reasonable fear.

How do you know it wasn't?

He was shot and killed.

So it would seem to me that fear in this case would be pretty reasonable.

[steviem]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

It has to be a reasonable fear. Someone asking you what you are doing when you aren't a resident of the area isn't enough to provoke that. Does anyone know what time this went down?

He was going back to his father's house, which was in that area. I think in this situation he should've been treated as a resident

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

It has to be a reasonable fear. Someone asking you what you are doing when you aren't a resident of the area isn't enough to provoke that. Does anyone know what time this went down?

depends on the circumstances......isolating "Someone asking you what you are doing" from the context is misleading.

If you're walking alone along a quiet back street after dark and suddenly realize a total stranger is now following you, it's not only reasonable but prudent to be concerned about your personal safety.......and the first thing Martin did was try to ditch the suspicious guy who was following him, a very reasonable thing to do.

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

.... Does anyone know what time this went down?

IIRC, around 7pm in February......a perfect time to run out to buy some snacks before a basketball game came on the television

[mgguy]

Originally Posted by rdowns

What if Zimmerman pulled his gun on him and hitting him and slamming his head on the ground was the response?

In that case M would be justified in my opinion. Problem is, there is no evidence this is what happened. This seems kind of unlikely anyway, because if the gun was already drawn Z probably would have shot M before M got on top of him and slammed his head into the ground. In any event, this is all speculation since the evidence isn't yet available as to what happened. If M made first physical contact and the gun hadn't been drawn, then under Florida law Z had a right to used whatever force necessary to protect himself from further physical harm.

[Squadleader]

Still arguing in a vacuum I see...Here, chew on this for a while...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpUAF...&feature=share

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

depends on the circumstances......isolating "Someone asking you what you are doing" from the context is misleading.

If you're walking alone along a quiet back street after dark and suddenly realize a total stranger is now following you, it's not only reasonable but prudent to be concerned about your personal safety.......and the first thing Martin did was try to ditch the suspicious guy who was following him, a very reasonable thing to do.

I don't know that we have any evidence of Martin attempting to run away in this case, if he did and truly feared for his safety I wouldn't think he'd go back looking for a fight.

[mudslag]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I don't know that we have any evidence of Martin attempting to run away in this case, if he did and truly feared for his safety I wouldn't think he'd go back looking for a fight.

Just the report from the girlfriend that Martin tried evading Zimmerman.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by mudslag

Just the report from the girlfriend that Martin tried evading Zimmerman.

Thats not going to hold up in court.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I don't know that we have any evidence of Martin attempting to run away in this case, if he did and truly feared for his safety I wouldn't think he'd go back looking for a fight.

Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher Martin was running off and then later he told the police that Martin had run off (according to the leaked statement he gave the police anyway), and of course Martin's girlfriend also says he tried to get away from Zimmerman by running

[CorvusCamenarum]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I don't know that we have any evidence of Martin attempting to run away in this case, if he did and truly feared for his safety I wouldn't think he'd go back looking for a fight.

Actually, there's a reconstruction over at wagist.com that shows Martin ran away and then doubled back. It's from a couple weeks ago(-ish); I don't know the exact date. I think I've linked to it in this thread before, but I doubt many people bothered to read it, or even see it given all the noise.

In the meantime, I'll just leave these here. They're a long read, but worth it.

Last Refuge #9
Last Refuge #10-1
Last Refuge #10-2

[mudslag]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Thats not going to hold up in court.

Earwitness means a person who testifies about something that s/he heard and did not see. In Long v. Dutton, 621 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Tenn. 1985), the court held that “Earwitness-identification, the same as eyewitness-identification, presents a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification: Usually a witness must testify about an encounter with a total stranger under circumstances of emergency or stress. The witness' recollection of the stranger can be distorted easily by the circumstances just as it may be distorted by later actions of the police.”

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

That's not going to hold up in court.

And if she agrees to, and passes, a lie detector test, what then?

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

And if she agrees to, and passes, a lie detector test, what then?

She can't account for what Martin was doing on the phone. Unless she has GPS ears or was on a video chat she can only attest to what Martin said, not what he actually did.

----------

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Actually, there's a reconstruction over at wagist.com that shows Martin ran away and then doubled back. It's from a couple weeks ago(-ish); I don't know the exact date. I think I've linked to it in this thread before, but I doubt many people bothered to read it, or even see it given all the noise.

In the meantime, I'll just leave these here. They're a long read, but worth it.

Last Refuge #9
Last Refuge #10-1
Last Refuge #10-2

If he ran away and then doubled back that pretty much throws out any self defense platforms on Martin's part. If he doubled back and started the physical altercation I don't think this case has any hope of getting a conviction.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

And if she agrees to, and passes, a lie detector test, what then?

Good Gawd....."Lie Detector Test"....You watch toooooo much TV...No "Polygraph" is admissible without both parties stipulating to it, never happen ...annnnddd the girl cannot testify to hearsay...There is no case and the "Special Prosecutors affidavit looks like a campaign speech...Listen to any real live defense and prosecution attorneys this past week and none could figure out how the probable cause withstood first appearance scrutiny...Its ALL politics....

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Thats not going to hold up in court.

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

And if she agrees to, and passes, a lie detector test, what then?

Didn't realize passing a lie detector test necessitates admissible evidence.

Teach us more. Please.

(Or dodge with Bazooka Joe humor.)

[Squadleader]

Something else all the hypocrites to chew on....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUe...e_gdata_player

[mudslag]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Good Gawd....."Lie Detector Test"....You watch toooooo much TV...No "Polygraph" is admissible without both parties stipulating to it, never happen ...annnnddd the girl cannot testify to hearsay...There is no case and the "Special Prosecutors affidavit looks like a campaign speech...Listen to any real live defense and prosecution attorneys this past week and none could figure out how the probable cause withstood first appearance scrutiny...Its ALL politics....

I guess this needs to be reposted. It might be good to remember that every witness to this case to date are also earwitnesses to this case. As they all stated to hearing the confrontation before actually seeing anything. An earwitness is still considered a witness and therefore has the ability to testify as such.

Earwitness means a person who testifies about something that s/he heard and did not see. In Long v. Dutton, 621 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Tenn. 1985), the court held that “Earwitness-identification, the same as eyewitness-identification, presents a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification: Usually a witness must testify about an encounter with a total stranger under circumstances of emergency or stress. The witness' recollection of the stranger can be distorted easily by the circumstances just as it may be distorted by later actions of the police.”

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by mudslag

I guess this needs to be reposted.

Why?

Because it is truth?

Because it is admissible evidence?

Because someone emailed it to you?

Because it is on www.dailykos.com?

Because it is on www.foxnews.com?

Because someone on in your address book passed it along?

Why?

[mudslag]

Originally Posted by kavika411

Why?

Because it is truth?

Because it is admissible evidence?

Because someone emailed it to you?

Because it is on www.dailykos.com?

Because it is on www.foxnews.com?

Because someone on in your address book passed it along?

Why?

Because by law an earwitness is still considered a witness. Not sure why that's so hard to grasp.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

How is this relevant when the "child" weighs more than you do.

Not that is the case here, but the deceased might have had a better reach in the 'tale of the tape' than the shooter.

Hard to over-come that without some equalizer.

It is completely the case here. My original point was not about how 'just' something was. It was that a child was shot and killed. Even if Zimmerman was in a classic SD situation in which he was legally justified to use force and unable to escape, at the end of the day, a minor is still dead. A child, or young man if you want, with a family, with friends, with a life of their own. Minors make mistakes. And the person using the deadly force, justified or not, will live with that for every day of their life. Many people, and especially the media, romanticize self-defense situations. There is nothing 'noble' about it. I am not saying self-defense is a bad thing but it will tear one apart psychologically regardless of who was justified in doing what. My ultimate point was that I truly believe Zimmerman is sorry. I am not saying that is or isn't sufficient in itself.