<p>but posts 1390 and 1391 left out another group.
There is a group that wants to hear more evidence before they decide, and are remembering the presumption of innocence, and where the burden of proof lies.</p>
<p>Of course GZ is entitled to a fair trial. It bothers me that he doesn’t seem especially remorseful or upset that he killed someone who had no connection to the recent burglaries in his neighborhood. Perhaps he does, but hides it really well. I, personally, would have a hard time living with the knowledge I had killed someone. But I don’t wish for an unjust verdict just because I think he is an unrepentant person whose actions I disagree with. Hopefully justice will prevail.</p>
<p>OK, so here’s a hypothetical for the pro-GZ crowd, based on what GZ said in the Hannity interview. </p>
<p>Apply your thinking to TM, and what he had a right to do based on the facts as presented to him. We know that TM had spotted GZ, deduced that GZ meant him no good, and had run away from him. A few minutes later their paths cross again. TM confronts GZ and says either “Why are you following me?” or “What’s your problem?” Let’s assume that TM deduced from the circumstances, correctly, that GZ might be carrying a loaded handgun. According to GZ, the first thing GZ did in response to that question was reach for his…</p>
<p>phone. But would TM knw that? And in fact, isn’t it likely that GZ - having come face to face with the #$#^ punk #$$hole who he thought was “high or something” - actually reached for his ---- gun? </p>
<p>If that’s what really happened, GZ fans - did TM have the right to punch the creeper who was following him and in fact viewed him as a criminal, and who in response to a reasonable question immediately reaches for the area where he packs his loaded gun? And if TM had the right to “stand his ground” and not wait for GZ to pull his gun and shoot him down in cold blood, how does that affect your analysis?</p>
<p>This is a hypothetical, of course.</p>
<p>Allow me to add my common sense opinion(not legally binding) to slightly modify what riprorin said in post 1389.
The first two scenarios, I’d add “absolutely proven that Zimmerman…”
In the third one I’d add “if it is possible, even if unlikely, that Martin doubled…”</p>
<p>By golly, I think we agree in your post 1402 Sally. His apparent lack of remorse seems peculiar to me too. Even if in his heart he feels it was completely justified, I’d still think he’d show more remorse, unless his attys have advised him not to. Maybe showing such regret might make some think it shows he knows he was in the wrong?
In any case, remorse or not should not affect the outcome of the legal trial.</p>
<p>I see a tremendous positive out of all this. Hey (as 4th of July rolls around), let’s give a shout out to the jurors who are giving up parts of their lives/time for a grueling task.</p>
<p>Let’s rejoice that we (including GZ) have constitutional rights and limitations on the power of the government when it comes to depriving a citizen of liberty.</p>
<p>And, yes, let’s celebrate that we have a system of elected officials so we can work to get local laws enacted or repealed to serve what the citizens of that particular State want. And, each person has the right to move to live where the laws are more to their liking</p>
<p>Also, anything that makes us understand how the criminal justice system works (and its failings and shortcomings) is necessary to make it better.</p>
<p>If you want to see emotion, talk to someone who has been on the “defendant’s end” of a governmental charge in a country that does not have these things in place.</p>
<p>I’m not pro Z, I don’t feel one way or the other. I hope justice is served either way, and I wish there was more compelling evidence.</p>
<p>Kluge-You’re asking if TM thought Z was reaching for a gun, does he have the right to punch Z?</p>
<p>Yes, raiders83. We know GZ had a gun, it was loaded, and he was following a guy he thought was a criminal. Younghoss, I’d be interested in your opinion on this, too.</p>
<p>Let’s make it simpler. Just assume that GZ was reaching for his gun and TM beat him to the punch (literally.) Does TM have the right to do that? Does GZ have the right to kill him if he does but fails to sufficiently disable GZ to the point where he can’t shoot him?</p>
<p>Amen 07DAD. We’re lucky that our legal system, strange as it’s proceedings can be at times, is designed like it is. It’s not the court of public opinion, it’s not the court of emotion, it’s not the court of morality…it’s a court of LAW and should be allowed to run it’s course. </p>
<p>Does it always produce the correct result? Nope…but it’s batting average is still pretty darn good. Does justice always prevail? Nope…but in some cases it’s pretty darn hard to define exactly what justice entails.</p>
<p>IF GZ is acquitted, address your complaints to the Seminole County prosecutor’s office. It’s their call what charges to bring (theoretically) and their responsibility to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. 0 for 2 so far by most accounts.</p>
<p>As interesting as kluge’s “what if” scenario might be, the only thing that matters is what you can PROVE in a court of law…not what anyone THINKS happened. Unfortunately, there’s only one person who KNOWS what happened and he won’t be talking anytime soon. Anyone else’s opinion makes for entertaining dinner theater…but that’s about it.</p>
<p>Short of a high def video with enhanced audio suddenly coming to light, I doubt anyone can say with any certainty what happened that night…unless the Citizen’s King and Citizen’s Judge have a time machine hiding somewhere that we can all borrow.</p>
<p>If the citizen’s grand jury says you can use the Tardis, feel free to take it, wolverine. My position is apparently symbolic.</p>
<p>Sweet!! Thanks poetgrl. First stop…the grassy knoll, but Sanford will certainly be next. Like everyone else, I’d like to know for sure. Unfortunately, like all Detroit Lions fans, I fear we’re going to be left with disappointment and an empty feeling.</p>
<p>Yes he has that right in my view, 100%. </p>
<p>From what I keep hearing from lawyers on the news about Florida law, it has to be a fear that ANY REASONABLE PERSON would also have. And the fear has to be for life or serious bodily harm IF I recall. So if TM met those requirements then he’s well within his right to defend himself. Again this is what a laymen can gather from t.v. lawyers. </p>
<p>So TM seeing Z following him in a sneaky way, could give TM reason to fear for his own safety, and would make it self defense the other way I believe.</p>
<p>that goes exactly to the heart of what I do not “get” about this law.</p>
<p>Any misunderstanding now gives both people “the right” to kill one another. </p>
<p>I can’t figure out how this is “good law.”</p>
<p>Wolverine, I’m asking citizens for their opinion of what should be the legal response to an apparent deadly threat. It does matter what people’s opinions are.</p>
<p>Incidentally, as an appellate lawyer who has reviewed and briefed close to 200 felony appeals, each in a case where the defendant was convicted, I’m pleased to see the faith in the power of reasonable doubt expressed by some posters here. My experience, however, is that defendants are routinely convicted with less evidence than we’ve seen in this case. Real jurors rarely go to the extent that I see in Younghoss’ post that if any potential scenario results in a not guilty verdict they must acquit. Typically jurors decide what probably happened and vote based on that. </p>
<p>So my guess is that the jury will ponder the plausibility of the scenario that GZ and his counsel have put forth and decide if they think it’s true or not. Simple as that. When you’ve got a dead teenager and no evidence he was up to anything but buying Skittles something more than the possibility that the shooter thought his life was in danger from a youngster who is unable to speak for himself probably will have to arise.</p>
<p>No guarantees, but I find the commentary of some in the media to be unrealistic. A dead person and a smoking gun are powerful evidence.</p>
<p>Thank you for the response, raiders. So the question then is dual: whether TM in fact struck the first blow (still unknown) and second, if he did, whether TM had reason to fear that GZ might shoot him when he acted preemptively.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I think that’s the inevitable result of the fad of people like GZ wandering around with loaded guns. Are you going to take the chance that the creeper who’s packing heat is just a lame-o neighborhood watch guy who calls in every open garage door and “suspicious” looking character, or are you going to make sure he’s not going to be able to shoot you with that loaded gun he’s carrying?</p>
<p>I’ll answer, Kluge based on my opinion(not Fl. law), and the scenario exactly as you have posed.
I feel that if a guy says- “why you followin’ me?” then saw that follower reaching backward, i’m not sure that(alone) justifies hitting the guy. if the guy being followed sees the follower is absolutely reaching for a gun, then I do. I would see that as a reasonable response to defend oneself to act quickly, in that case. Largely because I think it a wrong response to draw a gun based on a guy saying “you followin’ me?” Merely asking the question, even in an angry tone would not put a reasonable person in fear for their life or serious harm. But drawing a gun on somebody could put the other guy in that fear.
So in that part of the scenario, I would see TM as doing the self-defense against a guy that had no justification to pull a gun, so no, in that example I do not see GZ having a right to shoot him.</p>
<p>And yes, as many others have stated, what a person can prove in court counts, but as I said, I am accepting your scenario on its face. I welcome your response to my answer.</p>
<p>There’s something I’ve been wondering about, and I’ve never seen it discussed. Trayvon was carrying a pretty good weapon - a large can of Arizona fruit drink in a plastic bag. If he really wanted to sneak up on Zimmerman and deck him, would the best way to do it be to swing the can hard into his head?</p>
<p>“I would assume that GZ’s lawyers will try to argue the imminent death or great bodily harm issue.”</p>
<p>Wolverine - You’re “late to the party” so I’m going to forgive you for ascribing to me views contrary to my posts! But I’m not being magnanimous, because I think you’ve listed what is perhaps the 2nd-most important key regarding the Verdict. (Juror bias would be #1 of course … see OJ trial.) </p>
<p>If jurors don’t believe a couple scratches and a bloody nose amount to “serious bodily injury” then GZ’s 2nd-best chance at acquittal is gone. That still leaves 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th-best chances in place … so don’t fret!</p>
<p>Re post 1403 Kluge:</p>
<p>I had the exact same thought as I watched that particular part of the testimony/film.</p>
<p>How very easy it would be to replace the word “phone” with “gun”, and suddenly self defense becomes aggression. </p>
<p>Which lead me to think that the easiest way for Zimmerman to create the illusion of self defense would have been to make a tiny change when he was telling his version of the events.</p>
<p>Martin verbally confronted Zimmerman and said something like, “back off.” (as Rachel testified she heard at the end of their conversation.)</p>
<p>Zimmerman said much the same thing, and then he said, “I reached down and pulled out my phone…” (?!)</p>
<p>Really, it is a bit of a stretch to believe that Zimmerman was afraid (as he stated he felt) and that, knowing he was carrying a loaded, hot gun, he would have pulled out his phone when Martin verbally confronted him.</p>
<p>So it seems reasonable that if Martin saw a gun instead of a phone, he would have been likely to throw a hard punch (Zimmerman stated that Martin punched him when he was pulling out his phone). Or even if Martin saw this creepy man who had been following him reach into a pocket, he would have had a reasonable fear that the guy was going to pull a gun on him, and would have had reason to punch the guy.</p>
<p>Maybe Trayvon had also heard about the many neighborhood robberies and thought he was about to become a victim of a mugging.</p>
<p>I thank you kluge for the question, and pointing out that I will <em>try my darndest</em> (though I confess I’m not always able) to keep an open mind to do what is right, and in this case I see following the law is what is right.</p>
<p>Younghoss, my response is— that’s why it’s probably not a good idea to encourage every Tom, Dick and George to arm themselves with firearms every time they head out to Target for groceries. Because GZ was a stalker, even though he denied it, and even though his reason for stalking TM was entirely noble in the abstract. But TM had no way of knowing that. He just knew some creepy guy was following him, and in Florida, that creepy guy might well have a gun and have bad intentions. (GZ did have a loaded gun and did have bad intentions towards TM, just not the “creeper” type TM and the witness joked about.)</p>
<p>Having people walk around with guns raises the stakes for everybody. In theory, it’s a great idea - “good guys with guns” stopping “bad guys with guns.” In reality, you get people being killed for no good reason, because in rality, there are way more George Zimmermans out there than John McClanes. In the real world we don’t have the advantage of scriptwriters making sure the bad guys are really bad guys.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for GZ. I feel sorry for TM’s family and friends. And I blame the NRA.</p>
<p>younghoss - Welcome back to the party. Always enjoy your posts!</p>