Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

What I think has nothing to do with it.

GZ is charged with murder.

He pleads not guilty and claims self defense.

He has to affirm WHY he thought his life was in danger.

All the jury has to go on so far are his recorded statements introduced as evidence by the PA.

He says a lot of stuff in those statements.

HE is the one who claims he was in fear of his life because of a verbal threat and that Martin was trying to get his gun.

What is so hard to understand about THAT?

HE is the only one who can describe his state of mind.

That's HIS claim. No one can prove him wrong beyond a reasonable doubt because the answer as to why he shot Martin resides in HIS mind.

So what would prevent any of us from finding a person we don't like, catching him alone, shoot him dead and claim he threatened us and tried to take our pistol away?

We would have to convince the Justice system we are telling the truth.

That's what GZ has to do as well.

He's fallen short with me.

YMMV

What if you had been punched in the nose first and knocked down?

He's fallen short?

The defense has not even started their case yet, so what are you even talking about.



So self defense in your mind only applies when there is a witness to the entire event, and not just the part where the victim is getting beaten.

Self defense cannot be claimed unless, what?

I agree with your post. But....... you have to account for GZ's claim that Martin was trying to get his pistol and he managed to get it away from him. THAT's the point where his story starts to unravel for me.

If he had claimed he managed to sneak his pistol out without Martin's knowledge [which I think is probably what happened] I wouldn't doubt the rest of his story.

And I would think he was justified in the shooting.

But, IF he is lying about that, what else is he lying about?

Verbal threat?
I must have missed something along the way. Did they decide that his busted nose and knotted up head was just his imagination?

If you quote a rhetorical question, you should be honest enough in your argument to quote the rhetorical answer as well.

That's why your post deserves no answer.

CD, under Florida Law, it is only the prosecution that can fall short. The defendant has no duty to prove anything. It is the duty of the State, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ did not act is self defense.

If you think for one second the state of FL cleared this hurtle, you've been on the force too long and need to hand in your badge.

Ok,...No soup for me!

GZ never said TM had the pistol and it had to be recovered.

GZ *thought* TM was going after it.

You're right. You missed something. Catch up with the rest of the class and rejoin the conversation.

You think I'm going back 70 pages, I don't think so.

Here, let me quote the whole [bleep] thing so maybe it won't be so offensively rhetorical to you.
But I still ask you, what about his busted up head? You think that was just his imagination? It seems to me to be a little more than JUST his state of mind.

It depends on which one of GZ's recorded interviews you take as gospel. Does THIS ring a bell ?

" At this point, it was no longer MY gun, it became THE gun we fought over". [ I THINK it was in the Greta interview, but I'm not certain]

Why would the PA try and establish the fact that Martin's prints weren't on the gun if no claim had been made that he touched it?

Quote... Nothing.

Excellent post.

You're just full of schit.

"Here, let me quote the whole [bleep] thing so maybe it won't be so offensively rhetorical to you.
But I still ask you, what about his busted up head? You think that was just his imagination? It seems to me to be a little more than JUST his state of mind."

First off, my "rhetorical" comment was directed to Heavywalker, not you. Look for yourself. It's NOT 70 pages back.

Now...... Here's how I see it :

GZ, like any CHL holder, knows that a self defense claim requires that you have reason to believe that an aggressor has both the intention and the means to kill or hurt you.

Being on top of him and beating his head on the concrete serves to establish both requirements in the minds of most of you. And it might well satisfy the jury.

But how you manage to wind up in that configuration is relevant as well. Martin is dead and there are no witnesses to what happened prior to the wind up. Just GZ's statements.

In response to the question as to WHEN he became fearful for his life, GZ could have said about anything without fear of contradiction. The answer he gave was the verbal threat coupled with Martin trying to get his gun.

See....bouncing his head off the pavement a few times after a punch in the nose is NOT ironclad proof that Martin intended to kill him or injure him severely.

A statement from Martin that GZ is gonna die TONIGHT fills the bill exactly as far as intention.

Consider that GZ KNOWS that cops are on the way. Once he shoots Martin and considers the relatively minor injuries he has sustained, he needs a reason why he couldn't maintain a defense until the cops got there.

Trayvon attempting to get his gun fills the bill nicely.

I readily admit that I may not have it right.

But GZ is stuck with the verbal threat and the attempt by Martin to get his gun as being the basis of his self defense claim.

It's not my claim, it's his.

I didn't make the concrete irrelevant, he did.

'evenin' Judge...... I thought you had forgotten us.

Totality of circumstances CD.

One fear does not negate the other, so the concrete never becomes irrelevant.

You know he has to know that already. Can't imagine what makes folks like curdog tick. What kind of mind is slanted towards the attacking thug in a self defense scenario?

Now right there I thought we were finally gonna be able to meet at an agreement.



Until you got to right here and just blew it out of the water....