Expert Witness: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot

[Carp]

Carp. The courts only deal with the issues that have been deemed to be a crime. You position may be perfectly perfectly placed in a discussion of proper social and morality standards but they simply are not part of the legal determinations.

I'm not even worried about the courts. This whole thing happens because Zimmerman was overzealous and did not know his role.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Really L.T.? I lived in Marysville on North Beale road for almost 7 years when my Dad was stationed at Beale (1968-1975) then shipped out to Iceland.

Really. I lived there in the 50s. Graduated HS in 56' It was American Graffiti personified. I am quite familiar with Marysville. They were our arch rivals in the Serria foothills league.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I'm not even worried about the courts. This whole thing happens because Zimmerman was overzealous and did not know his role.

That sounds frightfully like our DCC posters.

 

[Genghis Khan]

The biggest problem I have with the case is why does Trayvon get no self defense remedies.

If somebody follows you in a car and then gets out of the car to run after you or at least walk briskly and start asking me questions I have a right to defend myself.

I know none of us knows what really occurred, but I was surprised this was never brought up by the prosecution.

I think it was explained in this thread by Smitty, but basically Trayvon could use force to defend himself against Zimmerman, IF Zimmerman initiated the use of force, and only to the extent necessary. He could use deadly force in self defense only if he reasonably believed he was in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

Doesn't sound like any of that is how it went down though.

As far as at trial, someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think whether Trayvon was defending himself is relevant other than to establish who was the initial aggressor, since Trayvon wasn't on trial.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I'm not even worried about the courts. This whole thing happens because Zimmerman was overzealous and did not know his role.

I disagree. Part of it happened because Zimmerman was overzealous, but that tragic outcome happened because Martin was overzealous in reacting to Zimmerman. You can say Zimmerman should have just let the police handle and you would be right but you can say the exact same thing about Martin.

 

[BipolarFuk]

I'm not even worried about the courts. This whole thing happens because Zimmerman was overzealous and did not know his role.

Maybe he should have called Jerry Jones.

 

[Carp]

I disagree. Part of it happened because Zimmerman was overzealous, but that tragic outcome happened because Martin was overzealous in reacting to Zimmerman. You can say Zimmerman should have just let the police handle and you would be right but you can say the exact same thing about Martin.

Martin's reaction was step two...the first step was Zimmerman following someone who was not doing anything illegal. If that doesn't happen, then none of this happens.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Martin's reaction was step two...the first step was Zimmerman following someone who was not doing anything illegal. If that doesn't happen, then none of this happens.

Martin's reaction is why this happened. I am pretty certain Zimmerman never would have shot Martin without Martin's aggressive behavior.

 

[Smitty]

There was no crime committed either to warrant him being followed by Zimmerman.

This statement is true, yet doesn't mean that Zimmerman should have been convicted of murder or manslaughter.

I think everyone can agree that Zimmerman probably shouldn't have followed Martin. The issue is, that doesn't mean anything. The fact that Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin but did, does nothing to resolve the key issue that arises later as to self-defense.

 

[Cotton]

Martin's reaction is why this happened. I am pretty certain Zimmerman never would have shot Martin without Martin's aggressive behavior.

Quite a quandary because it can be argued that Martin wouldn't have been aggressive had Zimmerman not followed him.

 

[Smitty]

As far as at trial, someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think whether Trayvon was defending himself is relevant other than to establish who was the initial aggressor, since Trayvon wasn't on trial.

Correct, it is not relevant other than to establish that, but obviously establishing who the initial aggressor was is basically the key to the entire case.

And in that analysis, there is no evidence that it was Zimmerman, and in fact, most evidence points to it being Martin.

 

[Smitty]

Quite a quandary because it can be argued that Martin wouldn't have been aggressive had Zimmerman not followed him.

You guys are getting into some concepts of causation now.

But like I said, for the murder or manslaughter conviction, it doesn't go back that far. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was reckless by not listening to the dispatcher (even though there is actually evidence that he did listen to the dispatcher, but still...)

 

[Carp]

He stopped following him, but somehow he knew that Martin ran.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Quite a quandary because it can be argued that Martin wouldn't have been aggressive had Zimmerman not followed him.

Not the way I look at it.

If Martin punched Zimmerman for following him, that's minor.

If Zimmerman responds to that by shooting and killing him, that's probably murder.

If, however, Martin responds to being followed by beating Zimmerman so severely that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life (or Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun while severely beating Zimmerman), that's probably self defense for Zimmerman, and IMO that makes the outcome Martin's fault.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Quite a quandary because it can be argued that Martin wouldn't have been aggressive had Zimmerman not followed him.

Not really, it isn't a crime to follow someone. I don't think that he knew or or should have reasonably known that following someone was likely to result in that persons death.

 

[Cotton]

Not the way I look at it.

If Martin punched Zimmerman for following him, that's minor.

If Zimmerman responds to that by shooting and killing him, that's probably murder.

If, however, Martin responds to being followed by beating Zimmerman so severely that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life (or Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun while severely beating Zimmerman), that's probably self defense for Zimmerman, and IMO that makes the outcome Martin's fault.

Exactly.

 

[Carp]

Why again was he following someone who had not committed a crime?

 

[Cotton]

Not really, it isn't a crime to follow someone. I don't think that he knew or or should have reasonably known that following someone was likely to result in that persons death.

Is stalking a crime?

 

[boozeman]

Burden of proof and reasonable doubt are things that obviously nobody has interest in talking about right now.

I think people know more about Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea right now than those two terms which are key to the verdict.

 

[boozeman]

Is stalking a crime?

Stalking is persistent, repeated activity. It involves a series of actions that establish a pattern of behavior.

Now if Zimmerman's creepy cracker ass had followed him home several times, yeah.