George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[Rigby5]

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

Exactly and another point....they claim Z was stalking trayvon with a gun.....common sense dictates that if Z had his gun out there would have been no fight.....In fact Z had even forgot he had his weapon with him whilst being pinned on the ground he felt it and thus then pulled it out and shot the thug....forensics back up the angle of the shot being upwards as in would have been the case of a person being pinned under another person.

Obviously false, because if pinned, then it would be impossible to open your coat, much less pull a gun.
The holster always points down, so there then had to be room not only to grab the gun and pull it up out of the holster, but then to rotate the gun from pointing down, to pointing up.
There could not have been anyone pinning him down while he did any of that.

The angle of the shot means nothing.
When you are shooting in a hurry, you shoot from the hip, to then aiming at the chest would be an upward shot even if both standing normally, as long as they were fairly close together.
The fact we know Zimmerman was NOT pinned when he shot is not just that he would have been unable to draw, but that he had not one speck of blood on him. And shooting someone on top of you would have left powder on you as well as lots of blood.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong!
Martin's body was found almost 2 blocks away from Zimmerman's SUV, while Martin was on the cellphone to his girl friend.
That means it had to only be Zimmerman who was doing all the running.
If Zimmerman had returned to his SUV when the operator told him to, then he would have been in or at his SUV.
But he was not. He was almost 2 blocks away.

Are you really this dumb. It doesn't matter who was running or where they ran......martin circled back and attacked martin.

zimmerman stopped looking for martin and was going back to his SUV to wait for the police....since he called 911 and asked for the police...you do understand that...right? martin told his friend on the phone that he lost zimmerman in the condo complex....couldn't see him.....he went back and attacked zimmerman.....

A witness saw martin on top of zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.........and testified to this in court....

You can't make things up when there is an actual trial with actual witnesses and evidence that show you don't know what you are talking about....

You don't know what you are talking about....

It most definitely does matter who was running, because it is clear Zimmerman did NOT go back towards his SUV.
If he had, then the fight would not have happened nearly 2 blocks away, as it did.

And it is impossible for Martin to have gone back, because he was stopped as he made the cellphone call, and the call got interrupted by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

And no, there was no witness who said they saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
There were 2 witnesses, but it was too dark and far away for any sort of details like that.
{...
John Good told the jury today that he yelled "stop" at both men shortly after realizing that what he at first assumed to be a dog attack was actually two men grappling on the ground.
"I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious," said Good.
Good testified that he saw what he believed to be Martin on top of Zimmerman.
...
Good testified that he did not see Martin banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete.
...}
{...
Jonathan Manalo, who also lived near the shooting scene, testified today that Zimmerman told him just moments after Martin was killed to call his wife and say "Just tell her I shot someone."
Manalo did not see the confrontation between Zimmerman and the unarmed teenager, but walked outside of his home with a flashlight moments after hearing a gunshot.
He said Zimmerman looked like he had "got his butt beat," but was "speaking clearly."
...}

Not sure why you are focused on "running." We have zimmerman's 911 call, where he stated to the operator he was following martin, that he lost martin, then the operator tells him they didn't need him to follow martin he said okay and that he was heading back to his car to meet the police......

The point of running is that somehow Zimmerman and Martin got about 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV, after starting the 9/11 call at Zimmerman's SUV. That required a lot of time and movement if Zimmerman were just walking. But we know he was not because we hear him running in the audio of the call to the 9/11 operator.
To get 2 blocks away so quickly, Zimmerman has to continue running around the houses to cut off Martin, even after the 9/11 operator told him not to.

Nonsense....just your imagination working overtime. No evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was running.

Justice for Zimmerman - American Renaissance

Trial evidence proves Zimmerman was innocent

That is just stupid.
Clearly the dispatcher could tell Zimmerman was running, or else he would not have told him not to follow.

 

[Rigby5]

All those on here using their imagination to conjure up a false narrative of this case should have watched the actual trial...you know where all the evidence is presented.

One does need to go beyond the trial alone because the prosecutor was unmotivated.
He was harming his political career by prosecuting the son of a powerful judge, so was deliberately throwing the case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

Exactly and another point....they claim Z was stalking trayvon with a gun.....common sense dictates that if Z had his gun out there would have been no fight.....In fact Z had even forgot he had his weapon with him whilst being pinned on the ground he felt it and thus then pulled it out and shot the thug....forensics back up the angle of the shot being upwards as in would have been the case of a person being pinned under another person.

Obviously false, because if pinned, then it would be impossible to open your coat, much less pull a gun.
The holster always points down, so there then had to be room not only to grab the gun and pull it up out of the holster, but then to rotate the gun from pointing down, to pointing up.
There could not have been anyone pinning him down while he did any of that.

The angle of the shot means nothing.
When you are shooting in a hurry, you shoot from the hip, to then aiming at the chest would be an upward shot even if both standing normally, as long as they were fairly close together.
The fact we know Zimmerman was NOT pinned when he shot is not just that he would have been unable to draw, but that he had not one speck of blood on him. And shooting someone on top of you would have left powder on you as well as lots of blood.

As has been pointed out. The medical examiner stated that the shirt had to be at least two inches away from the body, because there was powder on his shirt but not his body; just the bullet hole. So either Trayvon pulled his shirt away before he was shot while standing up, or his shirt departed from his body as he was over Zimmerman.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

George Zimmerman, the onetime neighborhood watch volunteer who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, is suing Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming both 2020 Democratic presidential candidates defamed him in an attempt to "garner votes in the black community."

The lawsuit filed in Polk County, Fla., Tuesday argues Warren and Buttigieg’s two separate tweets on Feb. 5, which would have been Martin’s 25th birthday, used the killing “as a pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers.”

Buttigieg tweeted to his 1.6 million followers. The message garnered 42,000 likes, 13,300 replies and 6,600 retweets in just three days, the lawsuit states.

“My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free,” Warren tweeted to her 3.6 million followers on the same day, sharing four photos of Trayvon Martin as a small child, between the ages of 4 and 10. The message received 7,300 likes and 1,000 retweets in three days, in addition to national media coverage, the lawsuit states.

George Zimmerman sues Warren, Buttigieg for $265M, accuses them of attempting to garner black votes by defaming him

Any chance at him winning? Who knows. I'm sure he has a lawyer that made this decision, so I'm guessing he can.

There was nothing racial about the shooting of Martin. Zimmerman, a minority himself, lived in a very diverse gated housing complex. If I remember correctly, he attended his school prom with a black girlfriend. But because he was a white-Hispanic and not black himself, the lying MSM tried to make it a racial incident.

Have the Democrats finally crossed the line with using blacks to promote their hate? We'll see. Should be a very interesting election with this in the works.

What's he going to do, get a job?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

Exactly and another point....they claim Z was stalking trayvon with a gun.....common sense dictates that if Z had his gun out there would have been no fight.....In fact Z had even forgot he had his weapon with him whilst being pinned on the ground he felt it and thus then pulled it out and shot the thug....forensics back up the angle of the shot being upwards as in would have been the case of a person being pinned under another person.

Obviously false, because if pinned, then it would be impossible to open your coat, much less pull a gun.
The holster always points down, so there then had to be room not only to grab the gun and pull it up out of the holster, but then to rotate the gun from pointing down, to pointing up.
There could not have been anyone pinning him down while he did any of that.

The angle of the shot means nothing.
When you are shooting in a hurry, you shoot from the hip, to then aiming at the chest would be an upward shot even if both standing normally, as long as they were fairly close together.
The fact we know Zimmerman was NOT pinned when he shot is not just that he would have been unable to draw, but that he had not one speck of blood on him. And shooting someone on top of you would have left powder on you as well as lots of blood.

As has been pointed out. The medical examiner stated that the shirt had to be at least two inches away from the body, because there was powder on his shirt but not his body; just the bullet hole. So either Trayvon pulled his shirt away before he was shot while standing up, or his shirt departed from his body as he was over Zimmerman.

We all know what this was, so does the entire world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All those on here using their imagination to conjure up a false narrative of this case should have watched the actual trial...you know where all the evidence is presented.

One does need to go beyond the trial alone because the prosecutor was unmotivated.
He was harming his political career by prosecuting the son of a powerful judge, so was deliberately throwing the case.

Powerful judge? Who? His father did weddings and things like that. A magistrate only has so much power, especially when he has no jurisdiction in the area.

 

[Rigby5]

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

All states do not allow the use of deadly force if you caused the situation to happen, as Zimmerman did.
If you caused it, then you have to find another way out than deadly force.

Also as long as Martin had no weapon, was not disproportionately larger or stronger, than Zimmerman has no claim of defense against a deadly attack. Zimmerman should easily have been able to defend against any attack Martin could have mounted, without relying on the use of deadly force.

Your doughnut shop example is wrong.
You do NOT have the right to use deadly force in response to a physical attack, even if you think you are losing.
You can only resort to deadly force if you have reason to believe you are going to be killed.
And there is no reason to believe that in an fair fight situation.

Take a concealed carry permit class, and that is what you will be taught, and be shown the legislation that establishes it.
Of just ask any cop.
You can not kill a physical attacker unless there is some over ridding factor like a weapon, martial arts training, immense size difference, or some extreme violence indications like biting, eye gouging, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

No, when 2 people of similar physical capability are rolling around on the ground in a fight, it is totally and completely illegal for one of them to pull a gun and shoot the other. That fits the charge of murder, and is always what the police thought as well.
Zimmerman was NOT at all in reasonable fear for his life, and even if he had been, he still can not use deadly force because he caused the confrontation to happen in the first place.

Only if Zimmerman attacked him. In this case, Zimmerman was attacked first.

NO! Does not at all matter who attacks whom first. You can only use deadly force if there is evidence of you life being at severe risk.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Hey Ray, sorry I misspoke in my last comment. I was thinking of one thing and writing another.

This is what I was referring to - Ability, Opportunity & Jeopardy. Some include also Preclusion

Step One—The Central Ideas: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob

That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:

Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.

Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.

Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.

In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.

The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.

Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.

Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.

In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)

On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.

It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.

The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.

The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound
boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

Always remember:

1. The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2. Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3. Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.


Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim.

UseofForce.us: AOJP​

Our law (as in most other states) permits the victim to use deadly force if it's believed that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Also in our state, you cannot initiate the confrontation. While armed, you must retreat from any possible situation where such violence may occur.

In the Zimmerman situation, he was wrong by following Martin. He was not actually chasing him. Martin ran first and Zimmerman had to exit his vehicle and run to keep up with him. After Martin easily outran Zimmerman, that ended that episode. Zimmerman stayed on the phone with dispatch for nearly another minute. It is clear on the recording of the call that Zimmerman stopped running when the dispatcher told him it was not necessary. Martin hid from Zimmerman until he was off the phone. It's unclear if Martin suspected he was on the phone with police. In any case, Martin came back to Zimmerman and attacked him. That started the confrontation.

Now, if Zimmerman attacked Martin first, Martin would have reserved the right to defend himself, but again, Martin was long gone and clearly out of danger if that's what he was actually thinking.

To put it another way, let's say I'm at the doughnut shop at the counter. The guy next to me drops his doughnut and it lands on my pants leaving chocolate on it. I get pissed off at the guy and tell him off because he didn't even apologize. He gets pissed off and leaves the doughnut shop. When I leave the doughnut shop 20 minutes later, he is eating for me outside in the parking lot and attacks me. It's irrelevant what took place in the doughnut shop. All that counts is that I am being attacked which if overpowered, allows me to use deadly force.

All states do not allow the use of deadly force if you caused the situation to happen, as Zimmerman did.
If you caused it, then you have to find another way out than deadly force.

Also as long as Martin had no weapon, was not disproportionately larger or stronger, than Zimmerman has no claim of defense against a deadly attack. Zimmerman should easily have been able to defend against any attack Martin could have mounted, without relying on the use of deadly force.

Your doughnut shop example is wrong.
You do NOT have the right to use deadly force in response to a physical attack, even if you think you are losing.
You can only resort to deadly force if you have reason to believe you are going to be killed.
And there is no reason to believe that in an fair fight situation.

Take a concealed carry permit class, and that is what you will be taught, and be shown the legislation that establishes it.
Of just ask any cop.
You can not kill a physical attacker unless there is some over ridding factor like a weapon, martial arts training, immense size difference, or some extreme violence indications like biting, eye gouging, etc.

I've been a CCW carrier for nearly ten years now. That's how I do know what the laws are. And you are wrong. A CCW holder has the right to use deadly force if he or she believe that they (or others around them) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's the law.

Zimmerman clearly had that belief as he suffered two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a back injury. Yes, I would consider that serious bodily harm as the law outlines. It's why the police didn't arrest him. He wasn't arrested until later after the MSM lied about the story and the public started to scream.

 

[Rigby5]

Totally wrong.
Rachael Jeantel was Martin's girl friend, was the one on the call, and was the one who testified.
{...
Nineteen-year-old Rachel Jeantel holds some of the most critical information about the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet her delivery on the stand in Florida's Seminole County this week drew widespread criticism.

She was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a “train wreck.”

But the torrent of negative reaction across bar stools and Twitter became more telling than Ms. Jeantel’s simple testimony relating what she heard on the phone as she talked to Trayvon before the sound of a “thud” on wet grass and a disconnected line. Moments later, Trayvon, an unarmed black youth, was dead from a single bullet from a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol registered to George Zimmerman.
...}
Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

You need to actually do some reading before making mistakes like that.

Wrong, it just came out that her sister testified in her place.....and no, her testimony simply confirmed that zimmerman was no where near martin....that martin used a homophobic slur, and that he could have simply gone to his fathers condo........

You don't know what you are talking about....

I not only followed the case, but read the entire transcript at the time, and just read it again.
And no where in the trial did anyone testify that the phone call to Martin was with anyone but Rachael Jeantel, who testified.
And her testimony proved that Martin was not moving, and that it was Zimmerman who ran to get in front of Martin and cut him off
The fight happened very near the condo where Martin's father was visiting, so clearly Martin was trying to get home, and was NOT going towards Zimmerman's SUV. The body was found much closer to the home the Martins were staying at, and almost 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV.
Martin clearly could not have gone to the safety of the condo because Zimmerman got in front of him, blocking the way.

It has been alleged that the girl who testified is the half sister of the girl who was actually on the phone...if this is true, those prosecutors will likely face being disbarred.....and the judge could also be in trouble.

You don't know what you are talking about, the only witness to the fight stated martin was on top......we have the 911 call.....you have nothing but what you are making up in your head.

So since there has never been any testimony the 19 year old was not the one on the phone to Martin, why did you bring it up?

As for Martin being on top for the moment Good witnessed the fight, that is meaningless because he did not see who started it, or any deadly act by Martin that would have justified the use of deadly force in response, by Zimmerman.
Good saw just a brawl on the ground that Zimmerman appeared to be losing.
Not a justification for shooting.
The 9/11 call shows that Zimmerman disobeyed police orders, and ran after Martin even after being told not to.

The dispatcher didn't tell Zimmerman do to anything. He just advised Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin.

The dispatcher was just being polite. But the law clearly indicates that by following, Zimmerman was violating the rights of Martin, who himself has not broken any law.
Following Martin caused Martin to fear for his life, and justified Martin if Martin had killed Zimmerman.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Defend his life from what? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, and the police were on the way.......the unprovoked attack was martin attacking zimmerman

the attack had zimmerman on the ground being beaten by martin

zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life and/or great bodily harm

So everything you just posted applies to zimmerman, not martin.

No, when 2 people of similar physical capability are rolling around on the ground in a fight, it is totally and completely illegal for one of them to pull a gun and shoot the other. That fits the charge of murder, and is always what the police thought as well.
Zimmerman was NOT at all in reasonable fear for his life, and even if he had been, he still can not use deadly force because he caused the confrontation to happen in the first place.

Only if Zimmerman attacked him. In this case, Zimmerman was attacked first.

NO! Does not at all matter who attacks whom first. You can only use deadly force if there is evidence of you life being at severe risk.

Wrong.

Deadly Force: According to Florida law, a person can use or threaten to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of "forcible felonies" such as assault, burglary, or kidnapping. It is also allowable to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Florida Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

 

[Rigby5]

The fact is Martin deserved killing, a jury said so. So there was no stolen 25th birthday stolen in his case.

.

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Following somebody does not provoke an attack. It's legal to follow anybody you like unless they have a restraining order against you. The key words in our law is believe, and serious bodily harm.

If I am in a situation where I used deadly force, the only way that a prosecutor can charge me with anything is if he could prove what I believed at the time. Unless he can find a social media post that provides evidence I killed the guy for shit and giggles, it's nearly impossible to prove. Secondly, there is no legal definition of serious bodily harm. It's subjective. What is serious bodily harm? A broken arm? A broken nose? A broken fingernail? Again, all subjective.

Specifically following someone off any normal path, first slowing in an SUV, and then on foot, is deliberately intimidating and there is no one in the world who would not find that deliberately threatening.

It is NOT legal at all to follow someone in an a vacant community parkway at night like that.
It show a deliberate hostile intent.

No, the law is clear. If you use deadly force, then it is YOU who must prove there was a deadly threat. If your arm gets broken, that is not sufficient to then resort to deadly force. What you are thinking is irrelevant. Intent is not an issue at all.
The escalation of the use of a weapon in a fist fight is just simply almost always illegal. It can be legally done sometimes, but you have to be able to prove it was necessary.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong, it just came out that her sister testified in her place.....and no, her testimony simply confirmed that zimmerman was no where near martin....that martin used a homophobic slur, and that he could have simply gone to his fathers condo........

You don't know what you are talking about....

I not only followed the case, but read the entire transcript at the time, and just read it again.
And no where in the trial did anyone testify that the phone call to Martin was with anyone but Rachael Jeantel, who testified.
And her testimony proved that Martin was not moving, and that it was Zimmerman who ran to get in front of Martin and cut him off
The fight happened very near the condo where Martin's father was visiting, so clearly Martin was trying to get home, and was NOT going towards Zimmerman's SUV. The body was found much closer to the home the Martins were staying at, and almost 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV.
Martin clearly could not have gone to the safety of the condo because Zimmerman got in front of him, blocking the way.

It has been alleged that the girl who testified is the half sister of the girl who was actually on the phone...if this is true, those prosecutors will likely face being disbarred.....and the judge could also be in trouble.

You don't know what you are talking about, the only witness to the fight stated martin was on top......we have the 911 call.....you have nothing but what you are making up in your head.

So since there has never been any testimony the 19 year old was not the one on the phone to Martin, why did you bring it up?

As for Martin being on top for the moment Good witnessed the fight, that is meaningless because he did not see who started it, or any deadly act by Martin that would have justified the use of deadly force in response, by Zimmerman.
Good saw just a brawl on the ground that Zimmerman appeared to be losing.
Not a justification for shooting.
The 9/11 call shows that Zimmerman disobeyed police orders, and ran after Martin even after being told not to.

The dispatcher didn't tell Zimmerman do to anything. He just advised Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin.

The dispatcher was just being polite. But the law clearly indicates that by following, Zimmerman was violating the rights of Martin, who himself has not broken any law.
Following Martin caused Martin to fear for his life, and justified Martin if Martin had killed Zimmerman.

Only if he didn't run and Zimmerman tried to assault him. But you can't do that after you escaped harm.

If me and my next door neighbor get into a heated argument over the hedges between our properties, and we both just go inside the house, he can not attack me later that afternoon and assault me. That makes him a felon and he's going to jail.

When Martin outran Zimmerman, that ended the confrontation. Martin went back afterwards and assaulted Zimmerman. That's a new confrontation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If somebody robs a beverage store an is shot by the owner, nobody can say the robber's life was stolen. He took it upon himself to surrender his life for personal desire or gain.

Fair point. But if you're planting your flag on this Zimmerman person being the subject in the tweets in question,.that poses its own question -- was the kid on the end of the bullet robbing a beverage store? Or robbing anything? I don't know the details of the event.

Our laws are pretty similar to those in Florida. I'm pushing 60 years old right now, and I have a lot of medical problems. If two younger built guys point to me and say "LETS GET HIM" it's irrelevant if they have a weapon or not. No law states they have to. I (as a CCW holder in my state) reserve the right to use deadly force against them. This is exactly what Zimmerman did. He was attacked, he was virtually defenseless, and used deadly force to stop the attack not knowing how far Martin would go.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement but it has not escaped my attention how you crafted this scenario in a manner which justifies in your mind that you would have the right to use deadly force against these two individuals even without knowing what was meant by "let's get him" yet when it comes to Martin who knew he was being followed by Zimmerman and was eventually confronted by him, I've yet to hear any of you mention that Martin had cause for concern or the right to attempt to defend his life even if he was not armed. And you've apparently have forgotten the elements required in order to prevail in a self-defense claim, those being

(1) an unprovoked attack,
(2) which threatens imminent injury or death, and
(3) an objectively reasonable degree of force, used in response to
(4) an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.​

There is a theory in law that's called but-for. In other words, but for the actions of the defendant (Zimmerman), the resultant harm would have never occurred (death of Martin) especially since ALL of his assumptions about Martin were incorrect.

I hope the defendants countersue his ass and win and then attach everything he owns and/or acquires in the future to pay off the judgment. And that he and his attorney are sanctioned for filing such a frivilous series of lawsuits.

Following somebody does not provoke an attack. It's legal to follow anybody you like unless they have a restraining order against you. The key words in our law is believe, and serious bodily harm.

If I am in a situation where I used deadly force, the only way that a prosecutor can charge me with anything is if he could prove what I believed at the time. Unless he can find a social media post that provides evidence I killed the guy for shit and giggles, it's nearly impossible to prove. Secondly, there is no legal definition of serious bodily harm. It's subjective. What is serious bodily harm? A broken arm? A broken nose? A broken fingernail? Again, all subjective.

Specifically following someone off any normal path, first slowing in an SUV, and then on foot, is deliberately intimidating and there is no one in the world who would not find that deliberately threatening.

It is NOT legal at all to follow someone in an a vacant community parkway at night like that.
It show a deliberate hostile intent.

No, the law is clear. If you use deadly force, then it is YOU who must prove there was a deadly threat. If your arm gets broken, that is not sufficient to then resort to deadly force. What you are thinking is irrelevant. Intent is not an issue at all.
The escalation of the use of a weapon in a fist fight is just simply almost always illegal. It can be legally done sometimes, but you have to be able to prove it was necessary.

WTF are you talking about? Again, I'm a CCW holder in my state. I just posted the Florida law in that state. Nowhere does it say you can only use deadly force with a deadly threat. Again, bodily harm, robbery, attempted rape, anything that can bring physical harm.

 

[Rigby5]

It is still not known for sure where Trayvon ran off to....per his g/f she said he told her he was almost home....which was very close....if he were running he could have been home in less than a minute. So he probably did run home. As mentioned George had completely lost sight of him....had no idea where he was.

We have no idea what his girlfriend said or heard, because the pig that testified was not his girlfriend or the person he was talking to. The real girlfriend didn't want to get involved for some reason.

Where did you come up with that one?
Rachel Jeantel was Trayvon Martin's girl friend, was the one he called, and was the one who testified that the call from Martin got interrupted, most likely by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

While she was a terrible witness whom no one liked, it is clear from her testimony that Martin was not moving towards Zimmerman but away from him instead, and that it was Zimmerman who was doing all the running, and got infront of Martin, cutting him off from home.

Sorry.....you need to be updated...apparently the girl who testified on the stand was not the girl who was on the phone with martin....she was the girl's sister...who took her place on the stand.....that alone is enough for zimmerman to sue.....

And from that testimony, martin stated he lost zimmerman.........he could have simply gone to his father's condo......he circled back to attack zimmerman...he was the attacker, not zimmerman.....

And again...zimmerman had called the police....he was waiting for the police to show up......martin initiated the violence, not zimmerman.

Totally wrong.
Rachael Jeantel was Martin's girl friend, was the one on the call, and was the one who testified.
{...
Nineteen-year-old Rachel Jeantel holds some of the most critical information about the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet her delivery on the stand in Florida's Seminole County this week drew widespread criticism.

She was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a “train wreck.”

But the torrent of negative reaction across bar stools and Twitter became more telling than Ms. Jeantel’s simple testimony relating what she heard on the phone as she talked to Trayvon before the sound of a “thud” on wet grass and a disconnected line. Moments later, Trayvon, an unarmed black youth, was dead from a single bullet from a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol registered to George Zimmerman.
...}
Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

You need to actually do some reading before making mistakes like that.

I would say the same about you. She committed perjury which dismisses any credibility she could have had. Seemingly, she'll lie about anything.

https://nypost.com/2013/06/28/trayv...pposedly-wrote-to-his-mother-about-his-death/

Wrong.
First of all, the article is lying when it claimed Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch member.
He was not, and they rejected him because he would not follow their simple rules, like never be alone and never be armed.

Second is that she did not testify she wrote the cursive herself.
She likely dictated it to someone else.
So she was not lying and any claim she was lying is totally unsubstantiated.

 

[Rigby5]

It was demonstrated in court that from the time Trayvon took off running till the time the confrontation between him and George occurred--- 4 minutes elapsed. Trayvon told his g/f on the phone he was running.............the question being.......where was he running to?

Where he was staying with his father and his father's g/f was very close...as was pointed out by the defense attorney in the court room a good football player could have thrown a football from the point where he took off running to where he was staying with his father.

During this time George was on the phone with the dispatcher....but where was Trayvon? The time the fight started was verified by the neighbors who called the police as they heard the commotion and requested the police stating some guy was yelling for help.

The prosecutor completely ignored the mystery of the 4 mins. Why? Because they had no rational explanation as to where Trayvon went or what he may have been doing.


The Zimmerman defense team scored big on this....Z's attorney asked everyone to be quiet for 4 mins and whilst waiting for the 4 mins asked them to think about where Trayvon was and what he was doing for the 4 mins.

Liar.
The distance from the SUV confrontation to the home was about 3 blocks.
The distance to the death scene was about 2 blocks.
No one ever established that Martin ever ran at all, but we know absolutely for sure that Zimmerman was running, not only because we hear it on the dispatcher audio, but because Zimmerman got about 2 blocks away from his SUV where the dispatcher told him not to follow.
Look at the map again,
Clearly it was Zimmerman doing the running, in order to get in front of Martin and cut off his escape.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I not only followed the case, but read the entire transcript at the time, and just read it again.
And no where in the trial did anyone testify that the phone call to Martin was with anyone but Rachael Jeantel, who testified.
And her testimony proved that Martin was not moving, and that it was Zimmerman who ran to get in front of Martin and cut him off
The fight happened very near the condo where Martin's father was visiting, so clearly Martin was trying to get home, and was NOT going towards Zimmerman's SUV. The body was found much closer to the home the Martins were staying at, and almost 2 blocks from Zimmerman's SUV.
Martin clearly could not have gone to the safety of the condo because Zimmerman got in front of him, blocking the way.

It has been alleged that the girl who testified is the half sister of the girl who was actually on the phone...if this is true, those prosecutors will likely face being disbarred.....and the judge could also be in trouble.

You don't know what you are talking about, the only witness to the fight stated martin was on top......we have the 911 call.....you have nothing but what you are making up in your head.

So since there has never been any testimony the 19 year old was not the one on the phone to Martin, why did you bring it up?

As for Martin being on top for the moment Good witnessed the fight, that is meaningless because he did not see who started it, or any deadly act by Martin that would have justified the use of deadly force in response, by Zimmerman.
Good saw just a brawl on the ground that Zimmerman appeared to be losing.
Not a justification for shooting.
The 9/11 call shows that Zimmerman disobeyed police orders, and ran after Martin even after being told not to.

The dispatcher didn't tell Zimmerman do to anything. He just advised Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin.

The dispatcher was just being polite. But the law clearly indicates that by following, Zimmerman was violating the rights of Martin, who himself has not broken any law.
Following Martin caused Martin to fear for his life, and justified Martin if Martin had killed Zimmerman.

Following someone is not a violation of the law...once again you prove your ignorance of the law.

If Trayvon was in fear of his life.....why did he come back....as previously pointed out from the time trayvon took off running till the time of the confrontation was 4 mins. Also as pointed out from the point where trayvon took off running to where he was staying with his father was a very short distance.... he could have run there in under 1 min. at most....so the big question is if trayvon did not go home...where did he go? This was brought out by the defense team in the trial and they scored big with it....watch the video posted of the trial.

Your only value on this topic is one of humor....really laughable how anyone can be so stupid as well as ignorant.

Only if he didn't run and Zimmerman tried to assault him. But you can't do that after you escaped harm.

If me and my next door neighbor get into a heated argument over the hedges between our properties, and we both just go inside the house, he can not attack me later that afternoon and assault me. That makes him a felon and he's going to jail.

When Martin outran Zimmerman, that ended the confrontation. Martin went back afterwards and assaulted Zimmerman. That's a new confrontation.

 

[Rigby5]

It was demonstrated in court that from the time Trayvon took off running till the time the confrontation between him and George occurred--- 4 minutes elapsed. Trayvon told his g/f on the phone he was running.............the question being.......where was he running to?

Where he was staying with his father and his father's g/f was very close...as was pointed out by the defense attorney in the court room a good football player could have thrown a football from the point where he took off running to where he was staying with his father.

During this time George was on the phone with the dispatcher....but where was Trayvon? The time the fight started was verified by the neighbors who called the police as they heard the commotion and requested the police stating some guy was yelling for help.

The prosecutor completely ignored the mystery of the 4 mins. Why? Because they had no rational explanation as to where Trayvon went or what he may have been doing.


The Zimmerman defense team scored big on this....Z's attorney asked everyone to be quiet for 4 mins and whilst waiting for the 4 mins asked them to think about where Trayvon was and what he was doing for the 4 mins.

The better question is, if Trayvon was scared of Zim, why didn't he call the police himself in that four minutes? Had he done that, the police would have explained what was going on. But apparently he was not scared of Zimmerman. If somebody is after me that I fear would bring me harm, the last person I'm going to call is my GF. She can't help me.

The other way around, if my GF calls me because somebody is tailing her, and she can't think straight, I'm going to call the police for her. So what we have here are two people, one of them claiming to be in a bad situation, and neither one called the cops. Yeah, that's believable.

That is silly.
First of all, this is FL and Martin was Black, so he could not trust the police.
Second is that he thought when he left the street and rounded the corner, that Zimmerman would lose interest.
Otherwise he would not have stopped to call his girl friend.
He did not realize Zimmerman was running around the other side of the houses, in order to cut him off.
He would have called the police if he realized he was about to be confronted by Zimmerman blocking his path.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have no idea what his girlfriend said or heard, because the pig that testified was not his girlfriend or the person he was talking to. The real girlfriend didn't want to get involved for some reason.

Where did you come up with that one?
Rachel Jeantel was Trayvon Martin's girl friend, was the one he called, and was the one who testified that the call from Martin got interrupted, most likely by Zimmerman attacking Martin.

Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

While she was a terrible witness whom no one liked, it is clear from her testimony that Martin was not moving towards Zimmerman but away from him instead, and that it was Zimmerman who was doing all the running, and got infront of Martin, cutting him off from home.

Sorry.....you need to be updated...apparently the girl who testified on the stand was not the girl who was on the phone with martin....she was the girl's sister...who took her place on the stand.....that alone is enough for zimmerman to sue.....

And from that testimony, martin stated he lost zimmerman.........he could have simply gone to his father's condo......he circled back to attack zimmerman...he was the attacker, not zimmerman.....

And again...zimmerman had called the police....he was waiting for the police to show up......martin initiated the violence, not zimmerman.

Totally wrong.
Rachael Jeantel was Martin's girl friend, was the one on the call, and was the one who testified.
{...
Nineteen-year-old Rachel Jeantel holds some of the most critical information about the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet her delivery on the stand in Florida's Seminole County this week drew widespread criticism.

She was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a “train wreck.”

But the torrent of negative reaction across bar stools and Twitter became more telling than Ms. Jeantel’s simple testimony relating what she heard on the phone as she talked to Trayvon before the sound of a “thud” on wet grass and a disconnected line. Moments later, Trayvon, an unarmed black youth, was dead from a single bullet from a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol registered to George Zimmerman.
...}
Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck'

You need to actually do some reading before making mistakes like that.

I would say the same about you. She committed perjury which dismisses any credibility she could have had. Seemingly, she'll lie about anything.

https://nypost.com/2013/06/28/trayv...pposedly-wrote-to-his-mother-about-his-death/

Wrong.
First of all, the article is lying when it claimed Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch member.
He was not, and they rejected him because he would not follow their simple rules, like never be alone and never be armed.

Second is that she did not testify she wrote the cursive herself.
She likely dictated it to someone else.
So she was not lying and any claim she was lying is totally unsubstantiated.

The attorney showed her the letter and asked if she wrote it. She answered that yes she did. She said nothing about only dictating it. Then he asked her to read the letter back, and she couldn't. She didn't know whether to shit or go blind. She's a liar and perjured herself.