George Zimmerman

[CountValentine]

I can easily prove that is not the case, from the fact that you are alive and did not kill them. That shows it was not necessary for you to use deadly force to save yourself.

Do you believe Zim would have been beaten to death if he did not shoot TM. You are making my case now. 

[Achas Veachas]

What I am saying is I looked a lot worse than Zim did and took worse beatings than he did. Many times a few stiches and a couple of broken noses. You know how the saying goes "you should have seen the other guy". 

That's what Zim said...

[aygart]

Zimmerman claimed that tm was reaching for his gun. In that case how badly he was beaten is irrelevant.

[CountValentine]

Zimmerman claimed that tm was reaching for his gun. In that case how badly he was beaten is irrelevant.

I must have missed that part of the trial. 

[Hirshthg]

Do you believe Zim would have been beaten to death if he did not shoot TM. You are making my case now. 

Link to the Jury instructions.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Note, even if TM was only committing a Felony against GZ and not threatening his life at all, he would have had the right to shot TM. This assault was a felony. You will notice that the defense does not make this point, simply because it is unpopular.

However lawfully, when you are getting beaten up, you have a right to pop the guy if you have no other recourse.

[Dan]

http://youngcons.com/boom-actor-romany-malco-on-the-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-sympathizers/

[dirah]

George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue

You've just gotta love blatant media distortions ...
"The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense."

[Hirshthg]

The people he pulled out of the truck were white of black? Raciest! 

[Dan]

"When a Hispanic kills a black and is let off by a female jury, I think we all know who to blame here...
White men."

[CountValentine]

You've just gotta love blatant media distortions ...
"The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense."

The worst part is the ones who know better then turn those media distortions into facts in the case.

[sky121]

http://youngcons.com/boom-actor-romany-malco-on-the-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-sympathizers/

Excellent article.

[henche]

What I am saying is I looked a lot worse than Zim did and took worse beatings than he did. Many times a few stiches and a couple of broken noses. You know how the saying goes "you should have seen the other guy". 

Ok, so the mistake you are making is that you are conflating what would have happened had he not saved himself, with what happened because he saved himself.

That is, the injuries he actually suffered are not relevant. If you would come at me with a knife, I would be justified in shooting you. And then I might have no injuries at all!

Zimmerman's actual injuries are not at all relevant to the question. The question is what he reasonably believed was going to happen.

Your injuries prove that you would not have been justified in using deadly force. The proof is that you did not, and still are alive and not dismembered.

[CountValentine]

Zimmerman's actual injuries are not at all relevant to the question. The question is what he reasonably believed was going to happen.

Didn't you tell me there was two parts to this? The second part would be what a reasonable person believed was going to happen? Then his injuries would become relevant.

[CountValentine]

That is, the injuries he actually suffered are not relevant. If you would come at me with a knife, I would be justified in shooting you. And then I might have no injuries at all!

...but he did not have a knife only skittles. 

[henche]

Didn't you tell me there was two parts to this? The second part would be what a reasonable person believed was going to happen? Then his injuries would become relevant.

If you mean they would be relevant to what he thought was going to happen next, then you are correct. But it would only be one factor in what his belief would be based on. If I point a gun at you, you have no injuries yet, but you can reasonably believe I will shoot you.

[CountValentine]

If you mean they would be relevant to what he thought was going to happen next, then you are correct. But it would only be one factor in what his belief would be based on. If I point a gun at you, you have no injuries yet, but you can reasonably believe I will shoot you.

Let put it this way. As a juror I would have no idea what Zim was thinking at the time. Based on the evidence I feel he was not going to suffer great bodily harm. The evidence does show he didn't suffer great bodily harm. I can't be sure that in his mind if he felt his life was threatened. How should I rule according to the instructions given?

[dirah]

Let put it this way. As a juror I would have no idea what Zim was thinking at the time. Based on the evidence I feel he was not going to suffer great bodily harm. The evidence does show he didn't suffer great bodily harm. I can't be sure that in his mind if he felt his life was threatened. How should I rule according to the instructions given?

It sounds like you are saying that you are not sure, which is equivalent to reasonable doubt, and must make him not guilty.

[CountValentine]

It sounds like you are saying that you are not sure, which is equivalent to reasonable doubt, and must make him not guilty.

From day one I said not guilty. Are you saying if your not 100% sure then that is reasonable doubt?

Does anyone wonder why they didn’t go for the stand your ground defense? Wouldn’t that shield him from civil suits also?

[henche]

Let put it this way. As a juror I would have no idea what Zim was thinking at the time. Based on the evidence I feel he was not going to suffer great bodily harm. The evidence does show he didn't suffer great bodily harm. I can't be sure that in his mind if he felt his life was threatened. How should I rule according to the instructions given?

Not guilty. That's the nature of our criminal law system that requires proof beyond reasonable. And that isn't just true about self-defense--it's also true about the actual offense. There are cases where we think we probably got the right guy, but he gets off because we can't prove it beyond reasonable.

[henche]

Link to the Jury instructions.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Note, even if TM was only committing a Felony against GZ and not threatening his life at all, he would have had the right to shot TM. This assault was a felony. You will notice that the defense does not make this point, simply because it is unpopular.

I need to look into this more. This is odd--I did not know you could use deadly force to prevent any forcible felony. The jury instructions don't define what a felony is, which seems ridiculous. Let me look up what felony battery is in FL. I'm getting on plane now though