State pushes to keep Trayvon Martin's past out of George Zimmerman trial

[GandD 5,966]

Is it offense if I feel I'm doing it to defend myself?

Its like what the patriot earlier said about self defense. There are escalation levels that have to be considered. If someone is following, does that give someone the right to beat the ####### out of them? If someone beats you up, can you shoot them? My thought would be no to the first and only if there was perceived imminent danger to your life for the second.

[decocker 7,198]

You're overreacting Ev, the guy following you is completely within his rights to start stalking you. If you go on the defense in fear for you life, it's your fault if you end up dead.

if you're a suspicious black teen, you are expected to assume the position. no defenses. just a couple questions and a once over...if you've got nothing to hide you've got no reason to worry..

[GandD 5,966]

if you're a suspicious black teen, you are expected to assume the position. no defenses. just a couple questions and a once over...if you've got nothing to hide you've got no reason to worry..

Or run and hide from randoms yelling at you. GRANTED, GZ could have immediately brandished a gun. (Do we know he didn't do that?) In which case, you should prob do what he says until you see a window to jump him and get the gun. Well, unless he's a lot bigger than you, then you just have to do what he says and hope he decides not to shoot you.

[decocker 7,198]

Or run and hide from randoms yelling at you. GRANTED, GZ could have immediately brandished a gun. (Do we know he didn't do that?) In which case, you should prob do what he says until you see a window to jump him and get the gun. Well, unless he's a lot bigger than you, then you just have to do what he says and hope he decides not to shoot you.

gz should have stayed put. he was worried that tm was suspicious, up to no good, so he called the cops. he should have kept his butt on the phone with the cops until they got there.

but maybe gz didn't want to have another call placed to the cops without warrant. how many times had he called the cops that month? maybe this time, he wanted to make sure he had the 'suspect' in custody for the cops when they arrived. i'm sure he wanted the police to take him seriously and he was certainly fed up with the '#######' that always get away.

without assasinating tm's character, gz doesn't stand a chance. probably the worst thing obama did in this situation was opened his mouth and made it personal. in my opinion, that convinced the obama haters that gz is some sort of neighborhood hero and tm was nothing more than another black boy that didn't make it to 21.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Pick Some Ground, and Stand There..

Stand Your Ground .

Bonus points if , the ground yer standing on, resembles a house and your name is on the deed.

Stand Your Ground does not apply. That train has left the station. Try and keep up.

[Darnell 8,479]

Yah ! That was the point, already !

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a difference between "wrong" and "illegal". I agree that its not okay, but there is no law against it.

Marvin didn't use the word "illegal", he specifically used the word, "wrong." I understand what you are trying to establish here - is that, in your opinion, GZ wasn't breaking any laws with his actions and behavior leading up to the confrontation, but that isn't the measurement used to determine his culpability. It is in fact, quite relevant whether or not, GZ instigated the confrontation and he was savvy enough to know that when he was initially interviewed by the investigator, by claiming he was the one being followed ("I was walking back to my truck"). What I find peculiar in these discussions is that those who tend to believe GZ acted out of self defense, often bring up that TM was the one who allegedly followed GZ, but then dismiss GZ following TM (which we know he did for certain at least up to a point), as something that is legal (he wasn't breaking any laws).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Basically your saying that GZ, even if we assume TM attacked GZ first, is negligent for engaging TM and therefore should be convicted of manslaughter. I see the logic but don't believe it to as black and white as you think.

Not really. It will be near impossible to determine with any certainty who "threw the first punch." What I'm saying is that that is less important than actions and behavior of both parties leading up to the confrontation and based on GZ's calls to the police along with TM's phone call with his gf, GZ instigated the confrontation. What I'm also pointing out is that if TM's behavior (allegedly following GZ as he was walking back to his truck) was reasonably perceived by GZ as threatening, then obviously TM must have felt quite threatened from the beginning when he first realized GZ was following him.

If you think that somehow GZ was simply standing there and TM decided to attack him, that doesn't hold up logically and here's why. What was GZ hoping to accomplish or do once he 'found' TM? What would he say or do? We know what he didn't do. He didn't identify himself or explain why he was following TM. Instead, he jumped to several conclusions about TM, making him a suspect without any probably cause other than his physical appearance. We also know based on the gf's phone call that GZ spoke first and asked TM what he was doing there which contradicts GZ's claim that it was TM who approached him. TM was reasonably afraid and ran away from GZ (supported by both gf and GZ's phone call to police), so how plausible is it that TM stopped fearing for his life, stopped caring about getting home and out of the rain, and instead wanted to attack GZ? What was his motive?

Again, we'll probably never know exactly who threw the first punch, but there was none of GZ's DNA underneath TM's fingernails - which would have been present had there been a drawn out fight as GZ claimed. There were no fingerprints of TM on the gun either. GZ's version of what happened that night is so full of holes that he will have a very difficult time convincing the jury that he indeed shot TM out of self defense.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[B_J 2,752]

Not really. It will be near impossible to determine with any certainty who "threw the first punch." What I'm saying is that that is less important than actions and behavior of both parties leading up to the confrontation and based on GZ's calls to the police along with TM's phone call with his gf, GZ instigated the confrontation. What I'm also pointing out is that if TM's behavior (allegedly following GZ as he was walking back to his truck) was reasonably perceived by GZ as threatening, then obviously TM must have felt quite threatened from the beginning when he first realized GZ was following him.

If you think that somehow GZ was simply standing there and TM decided to attack him, that doesn't hold up logically and here's why. What was GZ hoping to accomplish or do once he 'found' TM? What would he say or do? We know what he didn't do. He didn't identify himself or explain why he was following TM. Instead, he jumped to several conclusions about TM, making him a suspect without any probably cause other than his physical appearance. We also know based on the gf's phone call that GZ spoke first and asked TM what he was doing there which contradicts GZ's claim that it was TM who approached him. TM was reasonably afraid and ran away from GZ (supported by both gf and GZ's phone call to police), so how plausible is it that TM stopped fearing for his life, stopped caring about getting home and out of the rain, and instead wanted to attack GZ? What was his motive?

Again, we'll probably never know exactly who threw the first punch, but there was none of GZ's DNA underneath TM's fingernails - which would have been present had there been a drawn out fight as GZ claimed. There were no fingerprints of TM on the gun either. GZ's version of what happened that night is so full of holes that he will have a very difficult time convincing the jury that he indeed shot TM out of self defense.

I have no problem with the idea that GZ was following TM to see where he went; just to tell the cops...he broke into that house, or he climbed over the fence. I'm not going to assume that GZ is a crazed vigilante on a hunt for thugs. I have no problem with the idea that GZ was told not to follow him, he said okay, and began walking back to his vehicle. To me, none of this matters. Perhaps TM hid, and calmed down a bit, and GZ stopped chasing near that spot, I can believe that TM could come out and confront him. And no matter who spoke first ( I think it was TM ), if GZ had said the right words, he could have defused the situation. When TM asked, why are you following me, if GZ had identified himself, perhaps nothing would have happened.

Correct we'll never know who threw the first punch, but the lack of a drawn out fight seems to hurt TM. It makes it appear that it was more of a beat down and therefore more believable that GZ was in fear for his life.

I agree with you that it will probably be manslaughter. I know some people firmly believe GZ is a murderer and I hope that manslaughter is enough to satisfy them. How long does the sentence need to be to prevent riots?

[SMR 368]

So does anyone know if you can be charged with murder 2 and then convicted of manslaughter. How does that work?

[decocker 7,198]

I have no problem with the idea that GZ was following TM to see where he went; just to tell the cops...he broke into that house, or he climbed over the fence. I'm not going to assume that GZ is a crazed vigilante on a hunt for thugs. I have no problem with the idea that GZ was told not to follow him, he said okay, and began walking back to his vehicle. To me, none of this matters. Perhaps TM hid, and calmed down a bit, and GZ stopped chasing near that spot, I can believe that TM could come out and confront him. And no matter who spoke first ( I think it was TM ), if GZ had said the right words, he could have defused the situation. When TM asked, why are you following me, if GZ had identified himself, perhaps nothing would have happened.

Correct we'll never know who threw the first punch, but the lack of a drawn out fight seems to hurt TM. It makes it appear that it was more of a beat down and therefore more believable that GZ was in fear for his life.

I agree with you that it will probably be manslaughter. I know some people firmly believe GZ is a murderer and I hope that manslaughter is enough to satisfy them. How long does the sentence need to be to prevent riots?

you're not going to assume that gz is a crazed vigilante, but you will assume that gz was justified in following tm not to 'see where he went' but to see if he 'broke into that house or he climbed over the fence'. that's very, very telling to me.

also, your concern in preventing riots and 'satisfying' tm supporters.. also telling.

[Karee 4,191]

How long does the sentence need to be to prevent riots?

A valid concern.

[Karee 4,191]

you're not going to assume that gz is a crazed vigilante, but you will assume that gz was justified in following tm not to 'see where he went' but to see if he 'broke into that house or he climbed over the fence'. that's very, very telling to me.

also, your concern in preventing riots and 'satisfying' tm supporters.. also telling.

What does it "tell" you? Please share.

[B_J 2,752]

you're not going to assume that gz is a crazed vigilante, but you will assume that gz was justified in following tm not to 'see where he went' but to see if he 'broke into that house or he climbed over the fence'. that's very, very telling to me.

also, your concern in preventing riots and 'satisfying' tm supporters.. also telling.

Your inability to recognize someone who is open-minded is also very telling.

[decocker 7,198]

Your inability to recognize someone who is open-minded is also very telling.

i'm not saying that i don't understand gz wanting to follow tm in order to have something to tell the cops, since he called them out there and all..

i'm saying you're not willing to be open minded when it comes to gz - but not the victim. do you entertain the possibility that tm was simply walking home from the store and did not attack gz? if so, that isn't something i've read from you here.

Edited May 16, 2013 by val erie