George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[MacTheKnife]

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.

Again....you need to watch the video of the trial posted....all this is covered and the defense had a field day doing it.

George said he was running, Trayvons friend testified Trayvon himself told her he was running. Regarding George running --no evidence whatsoever. for that. Then you lie again about what the dispatcher said to George.....her exact words....she asked Z if he was following Trayvon (because she heard the wind on the phone)....George replied in the affirmative....the dispatcher said 'we do not need you to do that ......also she had no authority whatsoever over George. She had no legal right to order him to do anything.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You need to learn some law.
What you are quoting is saying you can draw a gun if there is an attempted felony like assault, burglary, or kidnapping.
But none of those happened.
And being allowed to draw a weapon does not mean you are allowed to fire it at the person.
Regardless of who started it, it was a fistfight, so no escalation to a weapons is allowed, at all.
A fist fight is never an imminent threat of life unless there is some additional proof of the threat.
There wasn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You keep bringing that up and I keep asking how he was running if he was talking on the phone? He ran for a short while. When the dispatcher stated that wasn't necessary, he stopped running and continued his conversation for nearly a minute. If he continued running, he would have sounded like he did when he was actually running.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The jury said you're full of shit, so all your crap is moot.

.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

First of all more white folks are killed by the police than blacks...so if anyone should be in fear of the poeleece it is white folk.

So did trayvon phone you and tell you what he was thinking? Or are you just some kind of mind reader? hehheh

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

You need to learn some law.
What you are quoting is saying you can draw a gun if there is an attempted felony like assault, burglary, or kidnapping.
But none of those happened.
And being allowed to draw a weapon does not mean you are allowed to fire it at the person.
Regardless of who started it, it was a fistfight, so no escalation to a weapons is allowed, at all.
A fist fight is never an imminent threat of life unless there is some additional proof of the threat.
There wasn't.

No, it was not a fist fight, it was a felony attack. A fist fight is an agreement between two parties. When one person just attacks another, that's assault. Zimmerman never agreed to any fight. Therefore Zimmerman was assaulted, and undergone great physical harm, two of the reasons to use deadly force.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

The jury said you're full of shit, so all your crap is moot.

.

Exactly....he is a waste of time except for how fun it is to skewer him.

BTW he is no exception...most of the trayvon crowd are afflicted---- very similar to the way he is. Just another example of how dumbed down America has become.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You are going back to the disproved claim that Martin went back to towards the SUV in order to attack Zimmerman, and that is clearly false.
Given the short time and the great distance the fight occurred from the SUV, clearly they both ALWAYS were moving away from the SUV. Martin took the grass path between the houses, first going east, and then turning south.
Zimmerman took the longer path along the street, of first going south, and then cutting east to get in front of Martin, to surprise him and cut him off.
Is it totally and completely impossible for Martin to ever have moved towards Zimmerman, because then the confrontation would have happened close to the SUV, and it did not.
In fact, since Zimmerman had started running on a different path to cut off Martin, if Martin had gone back to find Zimmerman, then no confrontation would have happened, because Zimmerman was no longer back by the SUV.'
He had run ahead and was waiting for Martin, directly south of him.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

You keep bringing that up and I keep asking how he was running if he was talking on the phone? He ran for a short while. When the dispatcher stated that wasn't necessary, he stopped running and continued his conversation for nearly a minute. If he continued running, he would have sounded like he did when he was actually running.

The defense demonstrated that there was no evidence whatsoever of George running....the sound heard in the phone was the wind blowing.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

You are going back to the disproved claim that Martin went back to towards the SUV in order to attack Zimmerman, and that is clearly false.
Given the short time and the great distance the fight occurred from the SUV, clearly they both ALWAYS were moving away from the SUV. Martin took the grass path between the houses, first going east, and then turning south.
Zimmerman took the longer path along the street, of first going south, and then cutting east to get in front of Martin, to surprise him and cut him off.
Is it totally and completely impossible for Martin to ever have moved towards Zimmerman, because then the confrontation would have happened close to the SUV, and it did not.
In fact, since Zimmerman had started running on a different path to cut off Martin, if Martin had gone back to find Zimmerman, then no confrontation would have happened, because Zimmerman was no longer back by the SUV.'
He had run ahead and was waiting for Martin, directly south of him.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what idiocy. After Z lost sight of trayvon on that dark and rainy night....no one knows where he went...and for you to claim otherwise is b.s. you are just making up stuff to try and bolster your personal opinion based on bias.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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

You need to learn some law.
What you are quoting is saying you can draw a gun if there is an attempted felony like assault, burglary, or kidnapping.
But none of those happened.
And being allowed to draw a weapon does not mean you are allowed to fire it at the person.
Regardless of who started it, it was a fistfight, so no escalation to a weapons is allowed, at all.
A fist fight is never an imminent threat of life unless there is some additional proof of the threat.
There wasn't.

No, it was not a fist fight, it was a felony attack. A fist fight is an agreement between two parties. When one person just attacks another, that's assault. Zimmerman never agreed to any fight. Therefore Zimmerman was assaulted, and undergone great physical harm, two of the reasons to use deadly force.

the dumbass has no knowledge of the law on self defense in Florida.

 

[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.

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.

I do not believe you have a CCW because no one who took a class would ever have been so wrong.
Sure you can USE a deadly weapon to stop any crime at all, that is only by "brandishing" it.
You can threaten and even fire a warning shot.
But you can not use actually deadly force unless your life if threatened.
That is not just what the statutes say, but the whole definition of the balance between conflicting rights in a confrontation.
All of which are completely mute and void if YOU are the one who caused the situation to occur.
Its not like Zimmerman caught Martin breaking into his car or something.
There was no validity for Zimmerman acting in the obviously threatening way he did.
So it was Martin who had the only justification for the use of force.
Zimmerman had none at all.
And getting into a compromising situation like a fistfight that could easily have been avoided, while armed, is totally and completely illegal.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

Let me ax youse a question boyo.....how long do you think it would take trayvon to run 2 or 3 blocks?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Being embarrassed about not being able to read or write cursive is not lying.
It is not relevant, and dictating is considered authoring, a valid response, in her mind.
She never lied or committed perjury.
Lots of people dictate letters and sign them as their own.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

First of all your ignorance is showing again.

'Zimmerman was in charge of recruiting block captains for a neighborhood watch program and, after having been asked, was also part of a group to enforce parking rules in his community.

The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.

Donald O'Brien stressed that the homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program but that he did attend a meeting to start it. Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police, O'Brien said.

He said he once text messaged Zimmerman with praises for a group of workers who followed a burglar. Their actions led to the arrest of a young black man, who was charged with burglaries in the neighborhood, O'Brien said.'

Trial turns to Zimmerman's neighborhood-watch role

Regarding the State's star witness being a liar........................Lawyer: State's main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied

 

[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.

Again....you need to watch the video of the trial posted....all this is covered and the defense had a field day doing it.

George said he was running, Trayvons friend testified Trayvon himself told her he was running. Regarding George running --no evidence whatsoever. for that. Then you lie again about what the dispatcher said to George.....her exact words....she asked Z if he was following Trayvon (because she heard the wind on the phone)....George replied in the affirmative....the dispatcher said 'we do not need you to do that ......also she had no authority whatsoever over George. She had no legal right to order him to do anything.

George says Martin is running but only has a few second of view before he gets out of sight. And not only can Zimmerman be lying, but we know Martin is not running when immediately he then calls his girl friend.
So we now Martin was not on the move most of the time, and covered much less ground than Zimmerman.

There is absolute evidence of Zimmerman running.
First we have all the huffing and puffing in the audio, and then we have the huge distance between the SUV and the fight location.
While the dispatcher had no authority over Zimmerman, the dispatcher was correct to warn Zimmerman that following could appear as a deadly threat that could cause harm against Zimmerman to be legally justified.
Only a jerk would do that opposite of what the police suggest, like Zimmerman did.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You need to learn some law.
What you are quoting is saying you can draw a gun if there is an attempted felony like assault, burglary, or kidnapping.
But none of those happened.
And being allowed to draw a weapon does not mean you are allowed to fire it at the person.
Regardless of who started it, it was a fistfight, so no escalation to a weapons is allowed, at all.
A fist fight is never an imminent threat of life unless there is some additional proof of the threat.
There wasn't.

No, it was not a fist fight, it was a felony attack. A fist fight is an agreement between two parties. When one person just attacks another, that's assault. Zimmerman never agreed to any fight. Therefore Zimmerman was assaulted, and undergone great physical harm, two of the reasons to use deadly force.

Not only did Zimmerman agree to a fight, but deliberately caused it, making anything else impossible.
By running around the houses and cutting of Martins route home.
And we have no evidence who layed on hands first.
Could have been Zimmerman.
An assault you helped cause is NEVER a justification for the use of deadly force.
In fact, it would even have been illegal to even draw the weapon or fire a warning shot, because he caused the confrontation.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

Forensics experts say the evicence supports George.



https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1953110.html

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The jury said you're full of shit, so all your crap is moot.

.

Exactly....he is a waste of time except for how fun it is to skewer him.

BTW he is no exception...most of the trayvon crowd are afflicted---- very similar to the way he is. Just another example of how dumbed down America has become.

You just do not know law, any law at all.
Everything Zimmerman did was illegal.
I only do not blame the jury because the 2nd degree murder charge requires more proof of intent.
He should likely have been charged with 3rd degree instead.

The police believed he was guilty enough so that they wanted to arrest him on the spot.
Why do you not believe them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The jury said you're full of shit, so all your crap is moot.

.

Exactly....he is a waste of time except for how fun it is to skewer him.

BTW he is no exception...most of the trayvon crowd are afflicted---- very similar to the way he is. Just another example of how dumbed down America has become.

You just do not know law, any law at all.
Everything Zimmerman did was illegal.
I only do not blame the jury because the 2nd degree murder charge requires more proof of intent.
He should likely have been charged with 3rd degree instead.

The police believed he was guilty enough so that they wanted to arrest him on the spot.
Why do you not believe them?

If they wanted to arrest him, they would have. After the detectives investigated, they found everything Zimmerman told them to be true, and he was sent home.