|
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,506 Views)
|
|
HoosierLars
|
Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
Post #976
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head." The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot.
|
|
| |
|
eelbor
|
Jun 30 2013, 07:36 PM
Post #977
|
Zen Master
- Posts:
- 10,606
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head."
The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot. And that conjecture is the difference on who should be allowed the SYG claim and who should not.
|

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed
Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jun 30 2013, 07:39 PM
Post #978
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:36 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head."
The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot.
And that conjecture is the difference on who should be allowed the SYG claim and who should not. And that uncertainly creates "reasonable doubt" and GZ walks. Are you arguing that GZ should or will be convicted?
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 30 2013, 07:54 PM
Post #979
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:39 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:36 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head."
The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot.
And that conjecture is the difference on who should be allowed the SYG claim and who should not.
And that uncertainly creates "reasonable doubt" and GZ walks. Are you arguing that GZ should or will be convicted? I feel like half the time you're talking about what you personally feel should happen in the case and half the time you're talking about what should happen legally. They may be the same for you, but for some of us on here what we personally believe happened and what we thinks should happen legally are two different things. So it's confusing to respond to your post with what we personally think should happen and then have you respond with why that wouldn't hold up in court. Does that make sense?
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jun 30 2013, 07:55 PM
Post #980
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 07:54 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:39 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:36 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head."
The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot.
And that conjecture is the difference on who should be allowed the SYG claim and who should not.
And that uncertainly creates "reasonable doubt" and GZ walks. Are you arguing that GZ should or will be convicted?
I feel like half the time you're talking about what you personally feel should happen in the case and half the time you're talking about what should happen legally. They may be the same for you, but for some of us on here what we personally believe happened and what we thinks should happen legally are two different things. So it's confusing to respond to your post with what we personally think should happen and then have you respond with why that wouldn't hold up in court. Does that make sense? See this post
http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=8301985&t=7184833
|
|
| |
|
eelbor
|
Jun 30 2013, 09:02 PM
Post #981
|
Zen Master
- Posts:
- 10,606
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:39 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:36 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 07:29 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 07:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 02:07 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 02:05 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jun 30 2013, 01:56 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 30 2013, 01:03 PM
You are trying to paint a scene where the reality does not match your picture. TM did not kill anyone that night.
Eel, The reality is TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head. I don't think it's productive to debate whether GZ could have been seriously injured--the pictures speak for themselves. Dreach, if TM knew GZ had a gun, he probably won't have tried to beat him to death.
I am sure Zimmerman would love to have your evidence to use in court. You presume much and know little. The reality,as you put it, is you have no idea what happened, just like I don't. I have said very little about this case, but I call bullshit when I see it.
I'm seen the pictures, and the one eye witness who said in court that TM was on top pummeling GZ. Now tell me how the evidence can convict GZ without a reasonable doubt?
Huge difference between probable doubt and saying unequivocally that "TM initiated the physical contact, broke GZ's nose, knocked him to the ground, and was pummeling his head."
The only conjecture is that TM initiated the physical contact. However, I don't think TM had any wounds except for his knuckles and the gun shot.
And that conjecture is the difference on who should be allowed the SYG claim and who should not.
And that uncertainly creates "reasonable doubt" and GZ walks. Are you arguing that GZ should or will be convicted? I have avoided any claims one way or another.
|

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed
Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
Post #982
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened. Have you actually read the statute?
"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions.
|
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 30 2013, 10:42 PM
Post #983
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Yawnzz -- while that is specific to stand your ground, that's not specific to self-defense.
Florida statute 776.012 reads and 776.041 are going to be the relevant ones I believe....that's saying nothing about how the jury interpret them, but IMO they are more relevant than stand your ground to either Zimerman or Martin.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 30 2013, 10:43 PM
Post #984
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm
These are the statutes I am referring to.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jun 30 2013, 10:54 PM
Post #985
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Dreach, I see where you are coming from. I never formed much of a personal opinion and was curious to see what evidence would be presented in court. I started posting a couple of days ago, as I was surprised at how weak the prosecution's case appears to be.
A lot of you feel strongly that GZ should be convicted, and contrary to popular opinion, I don't like to go out of my way to piss people off.
|
|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jul 1 2013, 01:27 AM
Post #986
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- yawnzzz
- Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened.
Have you actually read the statute? "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions. Yawnz, Brum is right. You're quote is from 776.013, which is in regard to Home Protection. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
776.012 reads 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;
|
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 1 2013, 09:30 AM
Post #987
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 01:27 AM
- yawnzzz
- Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened.
Have you actually read the statute? "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions.
Yawnz, Brum is right. You're quote is from 776.013, which is in regard to Home Protection. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— 776.012 reads 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; So now you are not relying on SYG to state your case? You have stated that your opinion was that Zimmerman lost his rights after leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin. Just trying to clarify my understanding of your position.
|

|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jul 1 2013, 09:52 AM
Post #988
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 1 2013, 09:30 AM
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 01:27 AM
- yawnzzz
- Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened.
Have you actually read the statute? "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions.
Yawnz, Brum is right. You're quote is from 776.013, which is in regard to Home Protection. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— 776.012 reads 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;
So now you are not relying on SYG to state your case? You have stated that your opinion was that Zimmerman lost his rights after leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin. Just trying to clarify my understanding of your position. The SYG law here is applying to Martin.
|
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Jul 1 2013, 09:58 AM
Post #989
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 09:52 AM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 1 2013, 09:30 AM
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 01:27 AM
- yawnzzz
- Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened.
Have you actually read the statute? "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions.
Yawnz, Brum is right. You're quote is from 776.013, which is in regard to Home Protection. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— 776.012 reads 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;
So now you are not relying on SYG to state your case? You have stated that your opinion was that Zimmerman lost his rights after leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin. Just trying to clarify my understanding of your position.
The SYG law here is applying to Martin. Yeah, that's where you lose me. What crime was Trayvon standing his ground against? Harassment by being followed? The only possible crime that Zimmerman could have committed (from what we know) involves the shooting/gun which didn't come into play until after the physical confrontation. I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to understand all of the laws being thrown out here....just pointing out that this is where our opinions take different roads.
|

|
| |
|
dreachon
|
Jul 1 2013, 10:14 AM
Post #990
|
Creative Title Here
- Posts:
- 24,068
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #148
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 1 2013, 09:58 AM
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 09:52 AM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 1 2013, 09:30 AM
- dreachon
- Jul 1 2013, 01:27 AM
- yawnzzz
- Jun 30 2013, 09:52 PM
- dreachon
- Jun 30 2013, 04:49 PM
I understand your opinion on physical violence, and I do agree, but the fact is that the SYG law permits physical violence when someone is threatened.
Have you actually read the statute? "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." I care very little about this case, but it's pretty clear from a legal stand-point that whoever threw the first punch is the one committing a crime. Whatever happens to that individual past that point is due to their own actions.
Yawnz, Brum is right. You're quote is from 776.013, which is in regard to Home Protection. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— 776.012 reads 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;
So now you are not relying on SYG to state your case? You have stated that your opinion was that Zimmerman lost his rights after leaving his vehicle and pursuing Martin. Just trying to clarify my understanding of your position.
The SYG law here is applying to Martin.
Yeah, that's where you lose me. What crime was Trayvon standing his ground against? Harassment by being followed? The only possible crime that Zimmerman could have committed (from what we know) involves the shooting/gun which didn't come into play until after the physical confrontation. I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to understand all of the laws being thrown out here....just pointing out that this is where our opinions take different roads. "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."
It doesn't say anything about committing a crime. Zimmerman followed Martin in his car. Got out of his car, at night, in the rain, and chased after Martin. When he encountered Martin he didn't identify himself. He didn't say the police were on the way. What could Martin possibly have thought Zimmerman was doing? Coming in for a big hug? Zimmerman's actions were enough for Martin to reasonably believe Zimmerman meant him harm.
Edited by dreachon, Jul 1 2013, 10:17 AM.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|