Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

It wasn't a expert witness, just a fact witness.

Oh, you can carry. Just don't shoot. I don't know about pointing or aiming. That's another court case.

I do appreciate your confidence on my pithyness sir.

Apparently they don't know how to do a private chat. The skype addy was visible on the screen.

I don't entirely buy self defense theory. He could have avoided confrontation simply by not following Martin. He was clearly told by 911 operator not to follow him. He elected to act nevertheless. Any reasonable man would be cognizant that a confrontation could happen in such situation. The bottom line is, even if his life was in danger when the fight erupted, what led to the confrontation was a result of his willful choice.

The bottom line is, even if his life was in danger when the fight erupted, what led to the confrontation was a result of his willful choice.
============

Were you paid to post this nonsense or is it actually what you believe? a 911 operator has no more authority than a receptionist at WalMart.

Let's put that 911 call in context. When you listen to it, the conversation is very collegial. The dispatcher keeps asking Zimmerman questions about Martin like, what does he look like, what is he doing, where is he now. George does his best to provide the dispatcher with the information requested. Then, it seems to me that it dawns on the dispatcher that George may be following Martin as a means to gather the information requested. He asks George if he is following Martin, George says yes, and the dispatcher says, "you don't need to do that."

I believe the dispatcher was not admonishing George for following Martin. Rather, he wanted George to know that he was not directing Zimmerman to follow Martin to get the information that the dispatcher was requesting.

In no way was it a directive to George to stop following Martin.

If he had have went to a bar he would not have run into him either.

Sometimes stuff happens.

Your analysis utterly begs the question. You don't loose the right of self-defense because you fail to predict that someone whose actions you find suspicious (and therefore who you decide to follow and monitor) will suddenly turn on you, attack you, tell you "you are going to die tonight" and then try to take your concealed weapon and use it on you.

What led to the confrontation was an unknown person, in a gated community, at 3am, lurking in shadows. If the average citizen is not allowed to even ATTEMPT to protect his own property, what is in place to deter crime? Are the police the ONLY ones allowed to confront a criminal?

Tell me about it, jorge. If this guy wasn't 100% justified within Florida law, it's hard to imagine who would be. Troubling for those of us who carry concealed here in Florida.

Notice how they're trying to create the impression that he's some nut job just frothing at the mouth to shoot someone because he had a live round in the chamber? WTF??? Your semiauto gun's little more than a paperweight if it doesn't have a round in the chamber.

Toward the end of the video that is posted below...pay close attention to the concept of imperfect self-defense. I realize this is only this law professor's opinion, but this supports the idea that it just doesn't matter even if GZ was following TM (and I think, like the reenactment video suggests he was not following.) He could have followed him, confronted him verbally, Raised his voice, asked poor questions, misunderstood TM's intent in being there, etc.... but if and when TM ended up on GZ's chest throwing punches while GZ's head was on concrete...game set and match. TM has created a situation that any reasonable human would consider one of grave bodily harm.



Perhaps TM had no intent of killing GZ. I think he never intended to kill GZ. But I do think he lost his cool... bowed-up...over-reacted...threw knuckles...and very sadly... got shot. I am certain that TM's family and GZ both wish, above all else, the confrontation had not happened. But it did. And if you or I see something one night in the WalMart parking lot in Anytown, Florida, and we misunderstand what is going on, act in ignorance or mild agression toward it....and suddenly, the person we were confronting, though initially doing nothing wrong, attacks us, gets us on the ground, hits us in the face, refuses to stop after 10 seconds of our screaming, and we sense no hope of immediate help...you have every reason to think that a bullet is an appropriate means to resolve the situation.



We'll not ever be certain who confronted who intitially. We'll never be certain of why GZ was out of his car. We'll never know what TM had on his mind. And none of that matters.





http://www.youtube.c...d&v=KvmhjMUcjl0

Great points MShuntfish.

Guess you haven't been keeping up with the trial. That's been explained several times.

I believe Martin was staying with his father and step-mother who lived in the complex. Correct?

Thats what someone told me. I

Jorge - it does make one re-consider the consequences of (not so much carrying, but) standing your ground. Regardless of who is right, the shooter looses (legal costs, possible imprisonment, social rejection,etc.). Something to think about.

I referred to him as Bob's intern. It's more appropriate in the legal world. My son "interned" at two Law Offices the summer before his last year of Law School, and went to work at the one he liked best when he graduated and was admitted to the the Bar shortly afterward.

Of course, he worked his way thru school and had a mountain of student loans to repay [which he has done,btw] so he had no choice.

He kinda liked the idea of CJ, but starting pay in a PA office sucks, and then he found that many of the trial lawyers at his firm had never seen the inside of a courtroom even after 5 or 6 years.

So.... TRHjd is an intern and [I'm sure] grateful for all the legal training he gets from his mentor.

MShutfish, you are eloquent and right on point.
But - given the totality of the circumstances, do you think defense counsel will be able sell it to six females?

After reading the short bio of each juror that's been made public, I think there is some likelihood that at least one juror of the three that seem very good for the defense will prove articulate and persuasive. And since the facts, as born from testimony so far, seem so one-sided...

I can easily imagine a short deliberation, led by logical discussion weighing Florida Law and the evidence, and a jury returning an acquittal. To be sure, I can imagine other scenarios...but they are more difficult to imagine.

IMO an all female jury is reversable error if JZ is convicted.