George Zimmerman sues Warren and Buttigieg for 265 million

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
We all know exactly where Zimmerman went.
There are only 2 possible routes to get from the SUV to the fight scene.
One is the route Martin took, going east and then south, and we know Zimmerman did not take that or else they would have collided earlier and fought much closer to the SUV.
Clearly Zimmerman took the only other route, which was to go south and they east, to cut off Martin
Since Zimmerman knew the complex, he not only could easily have done this, but it then explains why the fight was so far from the SUV.
It is the only possible explanation.
It is what the police say happened.
There were tracks in the wet grass.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You don't fire warning shots. That's illegal in city limits.

Cutting off Martin's path is something you contrived, nothing that actually happened. He wasn't in an alley, so even if your story had any truth to it, all Martin would have had to do is run the other way from Zimmerman.

Where is this evidence of yours that Zimmerman agreed to a fight? Again, you just made it up out of thin air.

 

[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.

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

But we know Martin was not running.
We know he instead made the cellphone call, which can not be dialed while running.
It was only Zimmerman who was running, and that explains how he got ahead of Martin.

 

[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.

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.

Wait a minute, when did the dispatcher say all that? He only said one thing "We don't need you to do that." That's all he said about Zim following Martin.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

The burden of proof was on the State they failed just like you are failing with your fairy tales.

 

[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.

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?

But we know Martin was not running.
We know he instead made the cellphone call, which can not be dialed while running.
It was only Zimmerman who was running, and that explains how he got ahead of Martin.

How do you know he was not running? He could run 100 yards by the time fat ole Zimmerman ran 20. Once he was out of sight of Zimmerman, then he called her. It's my suspicion that she was the one that made him feel ashamed of running. It's probably why they lied about who Martin was talking to.

 

[Pogo]

Y'all have been completely off the topic for days now and I keep getting notifications so I'm unsubscribing. If you get back on the actual topic buzz me.

 

[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.

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.

Wait a minute, when did the dispatcher say all that? He only said one thing "We don't need you to do that." That's all he said about Zim following Martin.

Exactly.....it is sop for police to advise anyone not to follow a suspect in order to keep them out of harm's way.

 

[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?

But we know Martin was not running.
We know he instead made the cellphone call, which can not be dialed while running.
It was only Zimmerman who was running, and that explains how he got ahead of Martin.

Ever hear of speed dialing boyo? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Wrong.
We all know exactly where Zimmerman went.
There are only 2 possible routes to get from the SUV to the fight scene.
One is the route Martin took, going east and then south, and we know Zimmerman did not take that or else they would have collided earlier and fought much closer to the SUV.
Clearly Zimmerman took the only other route, which was to go south and they east, to cut off Martin
Since Zimmerman knew the complex, he not only could easily have done this, but it then explains why the fight was so far from the SUV.
It is the only possible explanation.
It is what the police say happened.
There were tracks in the wet grass.

Again, Zimmerman took the front way of the building to find an address of where he last seen Martin. I posted the reenactment. You should really watch it. If you didn't see that post, let me know. I'll repost it for you.

 

[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.

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

The article is totally lying and there was no testimony at all similar to what the article claimed.
Zimmerman had gone to one Neighborhood Watch meeting, but was rejected because he refuse their rules of not working alone or armed. There was no home owner association security group, and there is no legal way for there to be such a group without registering with the police, and following police rules about not working alone or armed.
I read the interview of the Neighborhood Watch woman who arranged the meeting Zimmerman went to once, and she said he was not interested in joining their group due to the rules.

Clearly Zimmerman's father was an influential judge and got people to perjure themselves, in order to help Zimmerman.
But clearly Zimmerman had never followed burglars or help the police at all.

 

[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.

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

The forensic testimony said:
“This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman’s account that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot,” defense witness Dr. Vincent Di Maio said in Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1953110.html#storylink=cpy

However, that does not at all mean that the angle of the shot would not also be consistent with dozens of other possible scenarios, such as shooting from the hip.
And the scenario of Martin being on top of Zimmerman at the time is inconsistent with the fact that then Zimmerman could not have drawn that the blood would have traveled downward onto Zimmerman.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, the police always wanted to arrest him, but the prosecutor instead called his father the judge, and then ordered the police to let him go.
It was not until there was more wide spread political pressure that the prosecutor reluctantly charges and then deliberately threw the case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The article is totally lying and there was no testimony at all similar to what the article claimed.
Zimmerman had gone to one Neighborhood Watch meeting, but was rejected because he refuse their rules of not working alone or armed.

You strike out every time you swing the bat.

Wendy Dorival said Zimmerman passed out fliers and helped coordinate a neighborhood watch meeting on Sept. 22, 2011 - several months before Zimmerman shot unarmed teen Trayvon Martin in the community after calling a non-emergency dispatcher to report him as a suspicious person.

"The first time [Zimmerman] emailed me was about starting a neighborhood watch," Dorival said. "There were several burglaries that had occurred in the community. He was concerned about them."

Dorival said Zimmerman "seemed like he wanted to make changes in his community and make it better." She asked him to join another program, Citizens on Patrol, a training program for citizens to patrol their neighborhoods, but he declined. She described Zimmerman's role as a neighborhood watch volunteer as someone who would act as a liaison with police about community safety concerns, encourage citizens to act as "eyes and ears" for police and recruit "block captains."

George Zimmerman Trial: Man who shot Trayvon Martin was concerned about burglaries, police volunteer coordinator says

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

The ole jew hater Al Sharpton used his media contacts to get it going....he thought Z was a jew based on his name....he was furious that a jew boy nailed one of his homies...all about racism as usual with the negroes and liberals. and..........dat is all it was a big racial hoax and eric holder and obama put pressure on Florida's governor to indict george....not to forget how obama tried to prejudice the case....with his infamous and unfortunate statement of ...........if i had a son he would look like trayvon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, the police always wanted to arrest him, but the prosecutor instead called his father the judge, and then ordered the police to let him go.
It was not until there was more wide spread political pressure that the prosecutor reluctantly charges and then deliberately threw the case.

Please post this evidence of your claim. The last thing a prosecutor is worried about is a magistrate in another state. Do you know what a magistrate does? He hears small claims court. He marries people. That's all he does. Such a person has zero power, especially when it comes to a deadly self-defense case.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

No, the police always wanted to arrest him, but the prosecutor instead called his father the judge, and then ordered the police to let him go.
It was not until there was more wide spread political pressure that the prosecutor reluctantly charges and then deliberately threw the case.

More b.s. Do you stay awake at night dreaming this stuff up?

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

No, the police always wanted to arrest him, but the prosecutor instead called his father the judge, and then ordered the police to let him go.
It was not until there was more wide spread political pressure that the prosecutor reluctantly charges and then deliberately threw the case.

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN

Please post this evidence of your claim. The last thing a prosecutor is worried about is a magistrate in another state. Do you know what a magistrate does? He hears small claims court. He marries people. That's all he does. Such a person has zero power, especially when it comes to a deadly self-defense case.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

No, the police always wanted to arrest him, but the prosecutor instead called his father the judge, and then ordered the police to let him go.
It was not until there was more wide spread political pressure that the prosecutor reluctantly charges and then deliberately threw the case.

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN

 

[MacTheKnife]

George Zimmerman, Not Guilty: Blood on the Leaves