I know I know... but they won't stop it...
SaveAmerica (5,096 posts)
Did Zimmerman put hands on Martin first?
The last thing Ms. Jeantel heard (before the headset's rustling noises) was Trayvon's voice saying "Get off! Get off!". This reminded me of the "What Would You Do" episode last night of the 3 thieves who stole stuff from a car in front of a cafe. Some of the bystanders who felt it was their duty to approach and confront someone who they thought was taking another person's property had no problem putting their hands on those 'suspects'. They had hands on shoulders, one guy held the 'suspect' down forcibly and used language like he was a cop "I'm gonna ask you to step outside and put your hands where I can see them", etc.
It makes me think that Zimmerman would have had no trouble putting his hands out to Martin (after their paths crossed near the dog walk station) to either keep him from moving further away, or to hold him there til the cops got there. Martin was already scared that this guy was following him so I can see him telling him to 'get off, get off!' if Zimmerman came toward him aggressively and put his hands on him. This would be followed by Zimmerman 'forgetting' he keeps his phone in his coat pocket, pushes his jacket back to get his 'cell phone' from his pants pocket (which was really him trying to get his gun). Trayvon sees this, becomes even more scared and that punch to the face happens. (And even if he was trying to get his phone, he has acted suspiciously toward Trayvon and then aggressively, Trayvon was well within his rights to protect himself).
At this point, I don't even know what to say...
napi21 (39,519 posts)
1. I don't think anyone knows. That's why the jury
had a hard time. AFAIK the FL. la states that if you are the aggressor (threw the first punch) you can't use the stand your ground law. As much as most people say SYG law wasn't used in the trial, the jury thought it was. If they would have been convinced that Zim threw the first punch they would have convicted him.
Jury's fault...
SaveAmerica (5,096 posts)
7. I think that's why the Defense didn't want George to testify
In his re-enactment video he is struggling and reaching to piece together his story when they got to the area where he and Trayvon 'met'.
You know, you're helping me realize another important aspect of choosing a jury; I feel that this group might not have had sense enough to understand that 'get off' would not mean that Trayvon was down and Zimmerman on top of him, but to 'back up off of me'. A more mixed jury might have had someone on there who could explain that to them. And to me, Jeantel hearing those as Trayvon's last words shows that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
John2 (2,365 posts)
9. Where in
the law, (does it say throwing the first punch) or any physical contact for that matter? You don't have to throw a punch to be an aggressor. It has to be an act, that leaves some one to reasonably believe they are in imminent danger.
That is the part of the law that was ignored. That is the cover up going on. All Zimmerman has to do is move towards Martin in an aggressive manner, which gives Martin the right to react to him. It is called a provocation. He could even grab Martin in an offensive manner which would give Martin the right to react.
Once Zimmerman pursued Martin in an aggressive manner,including with a loaded gun, gave Martin the right to act in self defense. That is the part, Zimmerman's excusers want everyone to dismiss in the law. They have given their interpretation and claiming nobody has a right to question them. but there are other cases to dispute them and decisions by other courts.
The provocation started when Zimmerman pursued Martin. They want you to believe it was Zimmerman's right to pursue Martin.
They want you to believe, if it was Zimmerman's right to pursue Martin, then Zimmerman legally had the right to be at the same place as Martin.
The Zimmerman excusers want you to throw out the skill, what lawyers have done through the entire profession on how they decide difficult cases. They want you to throw out motive and intent. The only reason Zimmerman, intended to be where he was at is because he pursued Martin. Zimmerman was not denied from going any place. It wasn't like Zimmerman was just out on a casual walk. That is the difference between the right to be some where and pursuing another person with a gun. These lawyers just skipped over this part of the law. It is what you intended to do.
Martin on the other hand did not intend to confront Zimmerman or never pursued him at all. Martin had a right to go to a 711 and back home, without Zimmerman intefering with his right to do so. What was presented to the jury, was Martin circled back on Zimmerman after Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin. That made Martin the aggressor instead. The problem is, there was no evidence presented in that trial to prove that, except the words of Zimmerman.
Inconsistancies also were shown in the re-enactment. Zimmerman had to change statements on where Martin came from because the Bushes was no where near the side walk.
Martin being on his cell phone with Jeantel up until Zimmerman appearing again, gives Zimmerman a problem too about Martin sneaking up on him out the dark. Those lawyers and the jury disregarded common logic here.
I suggest , anyone who doesn't know about the law, go to the Law Library and look up intent, inregards to Civil Law or Criminal Law. If you don't know much about the Law, these lawyers are just like mechanics. Just look up the the definition of motive and intent with reference to the law.
It's all so simple... in simple minds...
MillennialDem (258 posts)
22. Lesson from Zimmerman case: kill the witness. Also "I'm going to kick your ass" is not what
I would call a terroistic threat, but it certainly would be provocation for the person you said it to hit first.
What? Who supossedly said that?
Hoyt (13,069 posts)
80. A guy carrying a gun is pretty obvious, there is an air about them.
Trayvon knew that the bigot stalking him was not unarmed, an that assumes bigot boy didn't have his gun drawn the whole time. My guess is he did.
Fact is, from the moment bigot boy strapped that gun on, he was ready to kill.
DOTY!!!!
Hoyt (13,069 posts)
89. I can even tell which side you got it on by the way you walk and
how many cartridges you have in magazine and whether you have one in chamber.
Hoyt (13,069 posts)
91. Exactly, Zimmerman was prepared to kill someone. If his fight training failed,
he had his piece and would use it on an unarmed black kid, given the "opportunity." I think a lot of gun nuts are like that.
This better not be someone's mole...
Lee-Lee (246 posts)
94. BS
I was deputy, and I am certified to teach CCW.
Carry with a round in the chamber is common and accepted. Cops do it on and off duty, the vast majority of concealed carry is done with a round in the chamber.
I am also military, and how the military handles weapons is a whole lot different than the rest of the world. The are way overzealous on virtually every aspect- I could go off on how military culture breeds some foolish stuff like that, but that is a subject for another day.
Carry with a round in the chamber is common, accepted, it is how I was taught and how I teach.
As for the "precaution", I am assuming you mean safety and don't know the proper term- if you are claiming Zimmerman had his safety off, it shows your ignorance on gun safety, despite your claims to the contrary. The gun he was carrying is designed without an external manually operated safety, like many modern handguns the safeties are internal and automatic. There was nothing for him to switch off.
Not sure why you even brought up the fact his gun was loaded, but it is pretty irrelevant unless you are trying to make a point to those ignorant about guns that is dependent on using their ignorance to create a false impression.
Lee2 is about to be murdered.... from DU....
Lee-Lee (246 posts)
106. Long story
My military experience is Army Reserve, almost 20 years now. In a very non-combat MOS, admittedly.
As for why I left LE, a lot of things timed out. A new sheriff was elected, and here in NC all deputies serve at the will of the Sheriff, so he can hire and fire at will. He reorganized, let a lot of people go, hired some people he wanted on, and told me the only position now open for me was School Resource Officer.
I didn't want to do that, and my unit was deploying in 9 months. So they had money to bring some of us part timers in on order prior to the deployment. So I went ahead and quit, as I had another small agency that was going to hold my credentials, and stayed on active duty doing schools and admin work and such for most of the next 9 months, then we deployed.
But, right before I left to deploy the agency that was holding my credentials got a new chief who didn't like that the old one was doing lots of people favors and keeping them on the books- so I lost that, didn't have time to get a new agency to hold it, and by the time I got back between that and some other issues I was no longer current.
In retrospect I should have just taken the SRO job, then gone on military leave, and I would have been good. But I was pretty pissed because friends had been let go and I was being shuffled to a job I didn't want, so I made the wrong choice.
Hoyt (13,069 posts)
95. Under the law passed in 2005, that could be true. Prior law, Zimmy needed to show he could not get
away from a kid. Zimmerman's lawyers were lucky, the jurors appear to have been typical southern bigots, scared of the boogieman. Harper Lee wrote about it.
yardwork (37,669 posts)
70. The jury didn't have a hard time. They were racists who thought that Trayvon deserved to be killed.
That's obvious from the statements that five of them made to the media after their pathetic verdict. We haven't heard from the sixth. It's possible that she wasn't a racist but simply went along with the other five.
can we have two DOTY?
