George Zimmmerman, Murder 2 and a "Depraved Mind"

So, do you really think that the short Zimmerman could chase down a tall athlete? Or are you just lying to yourself?

 

Why ? When what she said so far is meaningless. Plus, she's biased to begin with. Quite funny to even mention her alongside the word "testimony". LOL.

 

It's not proof, it's evidence the Pross will submit via testimony but I doubt that point of hers will carry much weight with the jury.

 

Oh, I'm merely stating the jury will weigh-on wether or not Zimmy was acting in self-defense according to the law ... I mean that's why Zimmy waived his right to Stand Your Ground ... because he wasn't.

 

O'Mara put 'em up to it ... LOL.

 

Are you as thick as doom? If someone instigates a fight it makes it much harder to assert self defense just because you were losing.

 

Problem? No proof.

 

I don't believe that.. It may backfire.. and Zimmerman's father looks like a lunatic.

 

Zimmy has an appellate issue should he be convicted based on everyone bieng nutzo except him .... LOL.

 

Of course it makes it harder, but not impossible under Florida law and not "just because you were losing".

If Zimmerman instigated the fight, and then was pinned by Martin and unable to escape, and was in fear of his life or bodily harm, then Zimmerman could lawfully use deadly force even though he started it. I don't agree with that law, but that's how it is written.

 

What proof is there that TM instigated it?

 

Credibility is everything here.... and George's is pretty shaky IMO.

How did Osterman get to the Retreat so quickly?

Did George have enough money in the bank to buy groceries on 2/26?

Did they mentor any kids that Sunday?

If you can't pay your rent, how do you feed two large dogs?

 

He never was stalked (by anyone).


The 2012 Florida Statutes - Title XLVI - CRIMES

Chapter 784 - ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

Zimmerman did nothing malicious. He followed standard Florida security methodology. He did not harass, and whatever he did, he did it just once, not in a repetitive fashion.

So all you Zimmerman haters can now stop trying to use the stalking ruse. As they (the buzzer) say in the quiz shows (when you speak the wrong answer >> AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!

 

Self defense and SYG are two different things from a legal standpoint. SYG implies that you have an opportunity to retreat. And that is clearly not the case when you are ambushed in a dark alley like Zimmerman was. Retreat is obviously a viable option when your attacker is on top of you pounding your head on the concrete.

All of the evidence in this case indicates that GZ acted in self defense after being sucker punched and attacked by NLN.

 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.


I'm not certain Z's injuries (bloody nose, head lacerations) including the med reports will be enough to convince the jury Z reliably believed he was in danger of imminent death or GREAT bodily harm. But you can be certain the Def will play up the pics.

I also believe the Pross will argue Z's gun came out quicker then he claims. They may argue Z "brandished" it when he claims he was going for his phone. If the Pross makes either of those stick, Z is toast.

 

That is what I mean, no proof. The timeline will be important and the fact that TM had plenty of time to get away if he were truely afraid. Otherwise there is no proof either way. This is probably more a case of young bravado. I remember that age. I was invincible. Did TM deserve to get shot? No. Did Z deserve to get pounded, not really though that is what many feel. No one can know what TM or Z thought. It is just not possible.

Good manners prove to be life saving.

 

Well, take for instance, one prospective juror actually stated today ... *none of this would have happened if Martin wasn't expelled from school and came here* ...

To some people it doesn't matter who instigated it ... and indicates that it doesn't matter how the law interprets self-defense and stand your ground ...

 

And what evidence is that, statements by the shooter?

 

If one wanted to post completely meaningless, irrelevant points, they could probably list hundreds (or thousands). why stop at four ?

Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot him. Justifiable homicide. Case closed. Not Guilty.

YOU KNOW "what evidence is that" What is this ? Play dumb day ?

 

TM ran away and then hid. What more proof do you need that he was in fear?

 

No, I'm saying be the end of the trial Z's word won't be worth spit to the jury.

 

Then why did he end up back where Z was? His father's apartment was on the other side of the walk and he had 2 and 1/2 minutes to go a distance that takes 30 seconds.

 

Its not worth discussing with you.

 

Because that's where he hid after hearing Z's car door open.

What is this 2 1/2 minutes thing? Z exited his vehicle the moment he saw TM running.