George Zimmerman's Lawyer Wants Jurors To See Photos Of Handgun, Pot Plants Found On Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There will be a trial, there will be a jury. The jury will be 12 registered voters from Florida that GZ gets to choose, following expert advice on jury selection no doubt. ALL 12 must decide that they have no right to defend themselves when attacked on the street

It takes all members of the jury to unanimously decide guilty or not guilty for each charge and for each included charge. You are wrong on the law again. If even one juror holds out, there will be a mistrial, and it starts all over again.

Zimmerman doesn't get to decide who is on the jury. His attorney gets a limited number of peremptory challenges, beyond which he must show for cause why a juror may not be seated. The prosecution gets the same.

Edited May 28, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not all homicides are 2nd degree homicides.

####### is a 2nd degree homicide?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

TM was on top of GZ smashing his head on the pavement, GZ drew his pistol and fired into TM one time. I doubt he even knew it was his chest.

The ballistics evidence makes that scenario impossible.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

What's to be scared of? Pictures of a gun and some weed?

Why does that define who he was as a person, but GZ's criminal record and actions do not?

Well case closed then, right? Since you know the facts.

And in reverse why does GZ record define who he was and TM's does not.

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

You sound like a reason I carry a gun.

Better be prepared to use it, cause I'll come after you like a wild banshee if you stalk me at night. And if you do shoot me, you better get yourself a good lawyer to try and explain your threatening behavior that night that led to a scuffle.

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

This is a summary of your views on this case and IMO lacks any logic.

Number 1. You would have no way to be sure you were actually being followed. In reality you might attack an innocent person injuring or killing them.

Number 2. Feeling like your being followed does not legally warrant an attack. You have two choices in that scenario, run or confront.

Number 3. You can actually take the above summary and apply it to foreign policy. What do you get? The Bush Doctrine- preemption.

Actually, I first noticed Gary driving his car slowly and staring at me, which creeps me out and then i realize he's following me so I run to shake the creep off me. I hear his car door slam and the sound of some fat, creep chasing after me, so I decide to hide behind some bushes and watch what he does next. Well, he stopped running and looked around for me, but has decided to walk in a different direction - maybe he gave up. But see I'm p!ssed now - adrenaline running through my veins. I got a pretty good look at him and realize Gary is this frumpy, short guy that I could take on if things get nasty, so I walk up to him and ask why he was following me. Instead of explaining, or even identifying himself he shoves me while asking what I'm doing here. Now I'm really p!ssed being that I happen to be a black, male teenager and having just everyone look at me with unwarranted suspicion, so I rush him like a linebacker and tackle him to the ground. Maybe he called me a name - I can't remember, but this douche has another thing coming if he thinks he can intimidate me. We grapple in the grass and then this mofo pulls out a gun! Instinct took over and I tried to disarm him, but he shot me instead. Now I'm dead and this fvcker is claiming self defense. His supporters use me being a black male who smoked pot as an indication that I was some thug who had it coming, but they don't see Gary's culpability in why we even met that night.

[lostinblue 1,989]

This is a summary of your views on this case and IMO lacks any logic.

Number 1. You would have no way to be sure you were actually being followed. In reality you might attack an innocent person injuring or killing them.

Number 2. Feeling like your being followed does not legally warrant an attack. You have two choices in that scenario, run or confront.

Number 3. You can actually take the above summary and apply it to foreign policy. What do you get? The Bush Doctrine- preemption.

Or you could walk the 75 or 100 feet and go inside your home. If you feel really threatened.....However talking to a woman he wants to impress he tells her I am going to take this cracker out.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I know as much as anyone else here. I just think there needs to be evidence backing a murder 2 charge to convict GZ. You apparently. .not so much.

I've never once said he will be convicted. I've simply stated my opinion on what I think happened.

Or you could walk the 75 or 100 feet and go inside your home. If you feel really threatened.....However talking to a woman he wants to impress he tells her I am going to take this cracker out.

That only happened in your head, not in the real world.

And in reverse why does GZ record define who he was and TM's does not.

I didn't say anyone's record defined anyone. But if you're going to keep throwing out some ridiculous pictures that apparently "prove" something about TM, make sure to mention that GZ wasn't exactly an angel himself.

[GandD 5,966]

Better be prepared to use it, cause I'll come after you like a wild banshee if you stalk me at night. And if you do shoot me, you better get yourself a good lawyer to try and explain your threatening behavior that night that led to a scuffle.

Then you'll be dead and now we'll have to discuss the situation leading to your death for months on end. You showed him. Wait, none of that will happen unless you're black. Basically, you'll just be dead.

[Karee 4,191]

Then you'll be dead and now we'll have to discuss the situation leading to your death for months on end. You showed him. Wait, none of that will happen unless you're black. Basically, you'll just be dead.

Another internet bad a$$.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Karee

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

Then you'll be dead and now we'll have to discuss the situation leading to your death for months on end. You showed him. Wait, none of that will happen unless you're black. Basically, you'll just be dead.

The instinct for survival (fight or flight) runs through our veins as mammals. When applying this scenario in nature, it's pretty obvious who was hunter and who was the hunted. Even an otherwise docile mammal will strike back when they feel cornered and threatened. All one needs to do is put themselves in TM's shoes that night and imagine what goes through your head or runs through your veins when you realize you're being hunted.

[GandD 5,966]

The instinct for survival (fight or flight) runs through our veins as mammals. When applying this scenario in nature, it's pretty obvious who was hunter and who was the hunted. Even an otherwise docile mammal will strike back when they feel cornered and threatened. All one needs to do is put themselves in TM's shoes that night and imagine what goes through your head or runs through your veins when you realize you're being hunted.

I can do that, pretty easily. Can't say I embrace the specific story you do but I tend to think GZ was in the wrong. HOWEVER, if it was me, I would never confront anyone. People can be armed nutjobs and I'm not going to risk it. TM should never have confronted GZ. Now this doesn't make it his fault, it just makes him dead. Which is sad.

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

I can do that, pretty easily. Can't say I embrace the specific story you do but I tend to think GZ was in the wrong. HOWEVER, if it was me, I would never confront anyone. People can be armed nutjobs and I'm not going to risk it. TM should never have confronted GZ. Now this doesn't make it his fault, it just makes him dead. Which is sad.

Yep. What I've done was demonstrate that TM possibly tackling GZ to the ground doesn't preclude that he out to get GZ, nor does it mean GZ met such physical aggression appropriately.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Here is where George loses his claim to sef defense even under Floridas pathetic law:

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.

[GandD 5,966]

Yep. What I've done was demonstrate that TM possibly tackling GZ to the ground doesn't preclude that he out to get GZ, nor does it mean GZ met such physical aggression appropriately.

Ah so a good question should be, is shooting someone ok if you believe your life is in danger during a physical conflict you started? Also remember, we don't know who threw the first punch. So, maybe GZ did it, or maybe TM did it.

What if it went down like this, GZ followed, yelled at TM to leave or whatever. If TM responds by beating GZ within an inch of his life, then leaving him to die while he walks away, how would we see this story? This is just for speculation BTW.