|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,533
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,533 |
Was it material to Zimmerman's defense whether Martin was a trespasser or invitee?
That's something that could confuse a jury and should have been excluded. Zimmerman lawyer Don West asked Dorival whether a person walking in rain between houses without a particular purpose — a description of Trayvon the night of the shooting — was suspicious. Dorival said yes and added that she encourages neighbors to know who doesn't belong and to call police.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
agreed. it is simply an altercation. but if you follow people around in the dark, don't be surprised if you find yourself getting your head smacked on the concrete.
and if you are smacking somebody's head on the concrete, don't be surprised if you get shot.
stupid vs. stupid. Wrong. Trayvon is a GUEST at his father's house and by extension, in the community. He has NO authority whatsoever, nor any right to trespass and peep in people's houses. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch commander, which may or may not have carried the authority to go wherever he pleased within the community. He was certainly doing the right thing by following and reporting a suspicious character to police. Even without some measure of authority and blessing even by the police, he was being a good neighbor. Trayvon's actions are the stupid ones, if viewed through the context of what a "regular joe" or "good guy" should be doing. First, a normal person is not out trespassing so as to get followed. Second, if something like this happens, a normal person would get the hell back to his dad's house where he was safe, or call 911 himself, not confront the person following. Third, if contact between the normal person and the follower was initiated, a normal person wouldn't jump the follower and try to kill them-especially after the follower looked and sounded harmless. (Harmless to a normal person out for a walk, though dangerous as a normal person reporting a criminal to the police.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,886
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,886 |
Of course Martin was suspicious.
I think that whether Martin was lawfully on the premises is immaterial if Zimmerman didn't know whether Martin's presence was authorized or not.
Last edited by night_owl; 02/22/17.
abusus non tollit usum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,766
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,766 |
agreed. it is simply an altercation. but if you follow people around in the dark, don't be surprised if you find yourself getting your head smacked on the concrete.
and if you are smacking somebody's head on the concrete, don't be surprised if you get shot.
stupid vs. stupid. Wrong. Trayvon is a GUEST at his father's house and by extension, in the community. He has NO authority whatsoever, nor any right to trespass and peep in people's houses. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch commander, which may or may not have carried the authority to go wherever he pleased within the community. He was certainly doing the right thing by following and reporting a suspicious character to police. Even without some measure of authority and blessing even by the police, he was being a good neighbor. Trayvon's actions are the stupid ones, if viewed through the context of what a "regular joe" or "good guy" should be doing. First, a normal person is not out trespassing so as to get followed. Second, if something like this happens, a normal person would get the hell back to his dad's house where he was safe, or call 911 himself, not confront the person following. Third, if contact between the normal person and the follower was initiated, a normal person wouldn't jump the follower and try to kill them-especially after the follower looked and sounded harmless. (Harmless to a normal person out for a walk, though dangerous as a normal person reporting a criminal to the police.) "doing the right thing" does NOT grant a person a 'level of authority' GZ, because of his actions, was one good smack from being the loser of this deal. how is that not stupid? and you do remember the part where the police dispatcher advised GZ to NOT follow TM? he followed TM anyway. how is that not stupid?
Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 |
"The facts support that George put himself in a situation that led to an attack"
What facts are those? If you had watched the trail you'd know some of the actual facts which are:
1) TM was a trespasser in a gated community and his Dad didn't live there, he climbed a fence to get in.
2) GZ wasn't on neighborhood watch the night he shot TM. He was coming home from the grocery store and saw TM walking through the front yard of a home that had been burglarized a couple of weeks earlier looking into the windows.
3) GZ pulled over the curb and called 911 to report a suspicious person.
4) When TM realized GZ was watching him he took off running into the darkness telling his girlfriend on his cell phone that "some crazy ass cracka is following me".
5) GM told the 911 operator that TM ran off and he was going go see if he could figure out where he went so he could tell the cops when they arrived. Even though he was armed he had no intention of confronting TM. The dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that" and testified that they are trained to say that for liability reasons.
6) TM found a dark hiding place only 100yds from the townhouse where his Father's girlfriend lived (they were out partying) and waited in the dark for 10 minutes to confront GM. When he saw GZ he came out of his hiding place and sucker punched him knocking him down. He then got on top of GM and tried to beat him to death.
7) TM was a violent thug, a burglar, a drug dealer/user, and a gun dealer. The sorry judge blocked all the defense's evidence that proved all these things because she did not want an acquittal in her courtroom. TM would have ended up dead or in prison sooner or later anyway. TM's Dad was a gang member in St. Louis in his younger days. He was a Crip or Blood, I don't remember which.
It's not against the law to follow a suspicious person until the cops arrive and I've done the same thing in my own neighborhood. Just because I want to protect my neighbors doesn't make me a "cop wannabe".
Who the f*ck is GM? It's a f*cking typo smart**. Should be GZ (George Zimmerman) like in the rest of my comment. Sweet Jesus, you have 157 different abbreviations in there, flying around. Just asking, as what you typed made no sense.
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
agreed. it is simply an altercation. but if you follow people around in the dark, don't be surprised if you find yourself getting your head smacked on the concrete.
and if you are smacking somebody's head on the concrete, don't be surprised if you get shot.
stupid vs. stupid. Wrong. Trayvon is a GUEST at his father's house and by extension, in the community. He has NO authority whatsoever, nor any right to trespass and peep in people's houses. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch commander, which may or may not have carried the authority to go wherever he pleased within the community. He was certainly doing the right thing by following and reporting a suspicious character to police. Even without some measure of authority and blessing even by the police, he was being a good neighbor. Trayvon's actions are the stupid ones, if viewed through the context of what a "regular joe" or "good guy" should be doing. First, a normal person is not out trespassing so as to get followed. Second, if something like this happens, a normal person would get the hell back to his dad's house where he was safe, or call 911 himself, not confront the person following. Third, if contact between the normal person and the follower was initiated, a normal person wouldn't jump the follower and try to kill them-especially after the follower looked and sounded harmless. (Harmless to a normal person out for a walk, though dangerous as a normal person reporting a criminal to the police.) "doing the right thing" does NOT grant a person a 'level of authority' GZ, because of his actions, was one good smack from being the loser of this deal. how is that not stupid? and you do remember the part where the police dispatcher advised GZ to NOT follow TM? he followed TM anyway. how is that not stupid? Zimmerman was probably already following Martin a little ways, trying to keep him in sight so he could id where he was at when the cops showed up. As a neighborhood watch Commander, that would have been a duty. He had no duty or obligation to take the advice of some dispatcher, but it seemed from everything I saw and heard that he had discontinued following him immediately or shortly thereafter, when the dispatcher asked him to. Trayvon then circled around or some such, and confronted Martin. Maybe if you weren't so wrapped up in what the communist fake news told you and eager to chug it down, you wouldn't parrot back bs. All we have are one or two eyewitness reports, audio from the police and Zimmerman's own phone, Zimmerman's testimony and statements and Trayvon's girlfriend's statements and testimony. That's quite a bit. Zimmerman's election to Commander of the Neighborhood Watch DOES give him a modicum of authority, regardless of what you think. Nobody said "doing the right thing" gave him some sort of authority. Zimmerman probably made some tactical errors. You and others are trying to make out like he did something legally or morally wrong. It's the opinion of the courts he did nothing legally wrong and my opinion he did nothing wrong morally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,224
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,224 |
I watched some of the trial, too.
The minute I heard the verbatim reading for the jury of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law,
GZ was not in his home or place of business. just being on another street in his own gated community doesnt amount to being in his own residence-dwelling.
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use
defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered,
a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,
and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force
is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence,
or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force
knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force,
if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act
involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it,
including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
It's still self defense, no matter how you cut the cake.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
I can't remember all the exact words in the confrontation, nor do I know the distances between Zimmerman and Martin so that handicaps any Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It seems to me that Trayvon didn't look like any child, since he was much taller than Zimmerman and probably heavier, wearing Thug-type attire. Thus, as soon as Trayvon appeared and showed an aggressive attitude, it seems that Zimmerman would have been within the law to at least draw his gun and tell Trayvon to back off, that he was Neighborhood Watch and wanted to know what he was doing. At that point, Trayvon could just take on off or stay for the cops. In any sensible locale there would have been nothing to charge Zimmerman with, although if Trayvon had went all soft, played the victim and a child, it might have went bad for Zimmerman, depending on how much backing the police gave the Neighborhood Watch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
Lots of people carrying guns these days.
Anybody who starts beating on a random individual is too stupid to stay alive in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,766
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,766 |
Zimmerman was probably already following Martin a little ways, trying to keep him in sight so he could id where he was at when the cops showed up. As a neighborhood watch Commander, that would have been a duty. He had no duty or obligation to take the advice of some dispatcher, but it seemed from everything I saw and heard that he had discontinued following him immediately or shortly thereafter, when the dispatcher asked him to. Trayvon then circled around or some such, and confronted Martin. Maybe if you weren't so wrapped up in what the communist fake news told you and eager to chug it down, you wouldn't parrot back bs. All we have are one or two eyewitness reports, audio from the police and Zimmerman's own phone, Zimmerman's testimony and statements and Trayvon's girlfriend's statements and testimony. That's quite a bit.
Zimmerman's election to Commander of the Neighborhood Watch DOES give him a modicum of authority, regardless of what you think. Nobody said "doing the right thing" gave him some sort of authority.
Zimmerman probably made some tactical errors. You and others are trying to make out like he did something legally or morally wrong. It's the opinion of the courts he did nothing legally wrong and my opinion he did nothing wrong morally. before you get all whiney and butthurt, go back and read my posts real slow so you understand. I said nothing about his actions being legal or moral. I said they were stupid.
Guns don't kill people, drivers with cell phones kill people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,999
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,999 |
The only facts that matter are that Travon assaulted Zimmerman using deadly force and Zimmerman defended himself with deadly force. And a gun usually trumps fists.
The Mayans had it right. If you�re going to predict the future, it�s best to aim far beyond your life expectancy, lest you wind up red-faced in a bunker overstocked with Spam and ammo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,611
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,611 |
This guy is bound and determined to go to prison. Why doesn't he just move to some quiet, out of the way place and live in peace? I know I would. powdr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Being a guest of a resident didn't give TM the right to walk through another residents front yard (private property) and look into their windows.
TM also assaulted GZ on private property. You are obviously a troll that didn't watch the trail.
Again, was it established at trial that TM was deemed as being unlawful and trespassing? you claim to have watched the trial and have all the 'facts', ..so why can't you answer that???
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Was it material to Zimmerman's defense whether Martin was a trespasser or invitee?
No it wasn't, but some people want to believe he was trespassing and that such conjecture matters.
GZ had no more 'authority' than TM in that situation.
Correct., GZ being a self-appointed NH watch person amounts to nothing in granting him any exclusive authority or powers.
It's still self defense, no matter how you cut the cake.
Nobody here argued that it wasn't SD, but it certainly wasn't a SYG situation as covered in Florida law statutes.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,160
Campfire Savant
|
|
Campfire Savant
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,224
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,224 |
Was it material to Zimmerman's defense whether Martin was a trespasser or invitee?
No it wasn't, but some people want to believe he was trespassing and that such conjecture matters.
GZ had no more 'authority' than TM in that situation.
Correct., GZ being a self-appointed NH watch person amounts to nothing in granting him any exclusive authority or powers.
It's still self defense, no matter how you cut the cake.
Nobody here argued that it wasn't SD, but it certainly wasn't a SYG situation as covered in Florida law statutes. Uhh, in case you forgot. It does have a bearing on the case, since the judge decided to read it to the jury in court.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176 |
Being a guest of a resident didn't give TM the right to walk through another residents front yard (private property) and look into their windows.
TM also assaulted GZ on private property. You are obviously a troll that didn't watch the trail.
Again, was it established at trial that TM was deemed as being unlawful and trespassing? you claim to have watched the trial and have all the 'facts', ..so why can't you answer that??? What's the question?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176 |
"Wrong. Trayvon is a GUEST at his father's house and by extension, in the community."
Wrong. TM was NOT a guest at his Father's house. It was TM's Father's girlfriend's house. TM was there because his Mother had kicked him out of her house. Even if he is a guest in a community that doesn't give him the right to trespass on private property. A guest at my house has right to go anywhere in my neighborhood other than on public property.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,176 |
"Nobody here argued that it wasn't SD, but it certainly wasn't a SYG situation as covered in Florida law statutes."
Nobody said it was a Stand Your Ground situation except the MSM and people like you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,535
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,535 |
If George's best friend was an LEO, why would he let George buy a Keltec P11?
I guess it did the deed but....... They make a good "THROW DOWN PIECE" !!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
613 members (1lessdog, 007FJ, 10Glocks, 222Sako, 21, 12344mag, 63 invisible),
2,431
guests, and
1,212
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,411
Posts18,470,431
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
