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

Kbrown said:
I also don't understand people who have a problem with Stand Your Ground and the castle doctrine. Argue they can be misused, fine. But to claim I have to stick my neck out to make sure a guy in my house in the middle of the night is there to kill my family and not just to steal my TV is absurd to me.
Click to expand...
It is abused IMO. I get the shoot some asshole breaking into your house thing. But people use self-defense even when they fricking pick a damn fight. It is ridiculous.
 
boozeman said:
It is abused IMO. I get the shoot some asshole breaking into your house thing. But people use self-defense even when they fricking pick a damn fight. It is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Concerning the Castle Doctrine, if they are on your property and won't leave, then all bets are off. You should be able to shoot them, even from 100 feet.
 
If they are on your property and are carrying Skittles and iced tea you can shoot them twice.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Reckless in doing things besides killing someone. That's where you are getting tripped up.



Agreed, but he could have been carrying the weapon and not followed Martin. His recklessness in carrying the weapon is not the same as whether he was reckless in using the weapon.

For the manslaughter conviction, once again, you must say he was reckless in killing Martin, not reckless in carrying the gun. That means the decision to pull the trigger must have been reckless, not the decision to carry the gun.



How?



Again, for manslaughter, he must have been reckless in deciding to pull the trigger, not reckless in following Martin.

For example, the recklessness in DUI is recklessness in driving the car, not in getting drunk. You are trying to tie it back to non-causational instances of recklessness.




I don't even understand what that means.
Click to expand...
I already stated why he was reckless in discharging his firearm and why it was a reckless decision to start firing.
 
2233boys said:
I already stated why he was reckless in discharging his firearm and why it was a reckless decision to start firing.
Click to expand...

That's easy to say in hindsight. Maybe GZ didn't suffer significant head injuries because he shot saint Trayvon before further damage could be inflicted. If he had stuck to your idea of a reasonable response they might still be hosing bits of his brain out of the cracks of that sidewalk.

If the two of them were standing and exchanging blows then you could reasonably say taking the shot was excessive. That's just a fist fight. But when TM takes him to the ground, straddles him, and continues to beat the shit out of him -- as the best evidence available indicates -- then a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death arises. Zimmerman doesn't know Trayvon's intent at this time. He doesn't know if Martin will keep punching and slamming his head until his skull cracks open. Straddling someone and continuing to beat the hell out of them and allegedly pound their head into a concrete sidewalk is the excessive, reckless act here. If Trayvon backs off once he knocks Zimmerman to the ground Zimmerman has no cause to shoot him. But he didn't, so Zimmerman could reasonably infer that this was more than just a fight. We'll never know if that was the case, but it was in the realm of possibilities so Zimmerman's fear of great bodily harm has to be considered reasonable and legitimate even though we can examine the situation today from our safe positions and make speculative claims about how much danger he was really in.
 
Carp said:
If they are on your property and are carrying Skittles and iced tea you can shoot them twice.
Click to expand...

That's correct if the thug carrying Skittles and iced tea punches you in the face, breaking your nose, then ground and pounds you.
 
I hope more vigilantes get their asses beat. As many as possible.

Like I need some fat fuck with a gun who thinks he Batman walking around 'following' people.
 
BipolarFan said:
That's correct if the thug carrying Skittles and iced tea punches you in the face, breaking your nose, then ground and pounds you.
Click to expand...

Feh. I'm sure Martin was beating his ass, but again, if he heeds the advice of the police then none of this happens.
 
I no doubt he should have listened to the po-po but that doesn't warrant a murder conviction.

It sounds like he should be charged with being an idiot.
 
If any verdict is returned other than "not guilty" the case will be appealed anyways. The judge might as well be working for the prosecution and she all but sealed the fate of kicking this up the ladder with a guilty verdict when she allowed the prosecution to bring up all kinds of shit about Zimmerman's past and how it might have lead to the shooting of TM, but didn't allow Martins past of drug use, gangster pics and problems at school to be presented.
 
skidadl said:
I no doubt he should have listened to the po-po but that doesn't warrant a murder conviction.

It sounds like he should be charged with being an idiot.
Click to expand...

I don't think murder is the right call either, manslaughter or another charge...can't say I well versed enough to know what the charge should be. He should not get off scott free though.
 
Carp said:
I don't think murder is the right call either, manslaughter or another charge...can't say I well versed enough to know what the charge should be. He should not get off scott free though.
Click to expand...

Harassment?
 
The reality is Zimmerman had no business or authority stopping, engaging, or simply harassing Martin for just walking down the street with a hoodie on. He killed a kid who was otherwise minding his own business until some wannabe cop decided to ruin his day. Zimmerman definitely needs to go to prison; he acted like a vigilante and now an innocent person is dead because of it.
 
The jury just took a recess to ask for clarification on the requirements for manslaughter. I assume that means they're looking at that or nothing.
 
Deuce said:
The jury just took a recess to ask for clarification on the requirements for manslaughter. I assume that means they're looking at that or nothing.
Click to expand...

Yep...everyone is saying Murder 2 is off the table.
 
I am hearing a lot of morality arguments on both sides. Put the blindfold on like lady justice does and assess the case within the legal guidelines. It may not fit your preferences but that is what a jurorist is supposed to do.
 
Local news just had a Black Panther rep on.

"Anything less than a Murder 2 verdict further devalues the lives of black people in this country."

:picard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom