Florida v. Zimmerman

Parent Cafe
1541

<p>younghoss, why isn’t it relevant that TM was afraid as well? In fact, he was in fear FIRST, because he was being pursued by someone for no apparent reason. It seems any punch he threw would be just as defensible under the idea of self-defense as GZ’s justification for the same action.</p>

<p>They are making a lot on Fox News about how GZ was apparently a star student in the litigation class (according to his professor who just testified) and yet he told Sean Hannity last year that he knew nothing about “stand your ground” laws. The Fox commentator just called out the change in his body language and the likelihood that he was lying when he answered Hannity’s question about whether he had heard of SYG.</p>

1542

<p>Here’s a hypothetical. What if Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun and Martin beat him to death? What do you think think should have happened to Martin in this case?</p>

1543

<p>Right Sally, I thought the judge ruled that GZ educational record can be presented to rebut the Fox interview. The door was open by GZ claim in the interview.</p>

<h1>1542, TM would go to jail. You don’t beat someone to death, that is unjustifiable any which way.</h1>

1544

<p>^ rip - In CT it’s Manslaughter.</p>

<p>If on the other hand, TM had picked GZ up and given him $5 to buy bandaids for his wounds, that might be construed as Bribery (because GZ was acting as an extension of the Sanford Police Dept).</p>

1545

<p>…but if TM was afraid for his life, why wouldn’t it have been self-defense, as I posited above? How can it be self-defense for GZ but not for TM?</p>

1546

<p>I guess it depends on what you mean by beating someone to death, if you have the upper-hand and incapacitate the other person but you continue to beat him to death. That is the way I thought it means by beating someone to death.</p>

1547

<p>Sally: Because TM wasn’t confronted with physical violence. He wasn’t pushed. He wasn’t punched.
He was asked something to the effect of, What are you doing? Zimmerman used words.
TM turned around and clocked him. According to testimony, TM started the physical part of it.</p>

1548

<p>“To NH- has it been established TM was defending himself by throwing Skittles at GZ?”</p>

<p>Actually I believe it has. Since there was no evidence of fisticuffs on TM’s hands, what Good actually saw was TM throwing Skittles at GZ.</p>

1549

<p>But there is no evidence except for GZ words that TM started the fight. Probably would have been totally different set of evidence if only TM is alive.</p>

1550

<p>I’m not a Fl Lawyer, Sally, but I think the difference is large, and based on commentary, is clear in Fl law. I can only tell you what I’ve heard. What I’ve heard is that being followed is not a justifiable reason to turn and slug somebody.
My thoughts on that query are in line w post 1547.</p>

1551

<p>We also have no proof that GZ didn’t flash his gun at TM. That would seem provoking to me.</p>

1552

<p>

</p>

<p>I guess your definition of butt kicking is different from mine. If someone broke my nose and put cuts on the back of my head and I didn’t leave a scratch on the other person, I believe I would have gotten my butt kicked. </p>

<p>I wasn’t persuaded by the “expert”. The injuries were not insignificant in appearance and if I had suffered them I don’t think I would have considered them insignificant.</p>

1553

<p>And the coming out of a bush statement makes it very questionable and possibly unreliable.</p>

1554

<p>"…but if TM was afraid for his life, why wouldn’t it have been self-defense, as I posited above? How can it be self-defense for GZ but not for TM?"</p>

<p>ttparent answered this. In CT we don’t blithely accept self-serving statements of admitted killers.</p>

1555

<p>Another interesting theory comes to light- “armed only with Skittles”!</p>

1556

<p>Who is salman talpur? He keeps trying to call on the skype testimony. It’s pretty funny. </p>

<p>Anthony is calling. Marcus is calling. David is calling.</p>

1557

<p>All of the professor’s buddies are phoning him to tell him he’s on TV.</p>

1558

<p>^ YH - He who is without love, humor and Skittles hast nothing.</p>

1559

<p>

</p>

<p>No, not unless TM’s school reflects reflect education on criminal law. On the other hand, the judge should let in prior examples of TM stealing if there are any such examples. </p>

<p>I think it was error for the court to enter ZM’s educational background.</p>

1560

<p>You all forget, TM was armed with the sidewalk as well.</p>