Try Stepping Into Trayvon Martin's Shoes For A Minute

We all know George Zimmerman's side of the story regarding the night he shot Trayvon Martin, his state of mind, how he feared for his life. But, Martin can't tell his side of things. He was a human being with a state of mind too. With all that was going on that night, does anyone ever consider that he was probably fearing for his life as well. At what point would he have had the right to take action to defend his own life?

Let's stop making it all about George for a moment and put ourselves in Martin's shoes.

He had been followed by an unidentified stranger. When he ran, the stranger ran after him. And, when he confronted the stranger, the stranger, who still never identified himself, made a move for his waistband similar to someone reaching for a gun. What would you do in such a situation? Would you not have the right to defend yourself, thinking that a gun was being pulled on you?

The above scenario is is exactly what happened to Trayvon Martin the night he was shot by Zimmerman, including Zimmerman reaching to his waistband. Don't take my word for it. Let George Zimmerman himself tell you what happened right before he says the first punch was thrown.

Here is a link to the reenactment George did for the police the very next day after the shooting.

https://youtu.be/PX1sxARNq_c

At approximately the 9:50 time stamp to the 10:40 time stamp is where George describes the confrontation. During the description, George offers a strange detail about what he(George) did right before he says Martin punched him. It's almost like he just casually explains away the real reason the fight even started. See if you notice it.

I would like to discuss this in a civilized manner if we can. Anyone responding is please asked to keep their politics and any racism out of the discussion. Thank you.

No votes yet

I can't put myself in Martin's shoes. I don't skulk around at night, I don't play cat and mouse with a neighborhood patrol, and I don't attack people.

Martin obviously tried to avoid trouble by losing Zimmerman, but Zimmerman's relentless stalking created a tragic incident.

Zero, you should be able to put yourself in his shoes easily since he did none of those things either.

He attacked Zimmerman. That's established, documented fact. It's the legal basis for Zimmerman's use of force to defend himself.

Liberals can deny that all they like. They only look more foolish every time they do it.

So what would you do? Why don't you want to answer the question? By the way, it's not documented fact that Martin attacked.

Of course it's documented, you idiot. It was a justified shooting. Therefore it was self defense. Therefore Martin attacked.

Logic 101. Liberals just can't admit it.

You're still avoiding the question. I guess you lost this one early.

I answered it already. I don't put myself in the shoes of criminals. I don't sympathize with them either. The more Liberals align themselves with criminals, the more ground they lose with the public... and that's precisely what we're seeing happening.

The "not guilty" verdict most certainly is well documented!

OJ was found "Not Guilty," too.
Even so, I am sure that OJ is a murderer.
Are you?

Zero, try this then...don't put yourself in Martin's shoes, keep them in your own. Would you be justified in defending yourself if an unidentified stranger who had chased you suddenly made a move toward his hip where a gun could be?

Wow, what unique insight. Get cracking on writing a letter to the judge since I'm sure all those legal eagles on the case totally missed that possibility.

(Yes, that was sarcasm.)

P.S. You forgot to mention that I would be out there selling Bibles like Martin was undoubtedly doing.

Don't worry, the police thought of it. When they questioned Zimmerman he gave about the same answer you're giving. He just kind of avoided the subject.

Here's a link to that police interview- https://youtu.be/h0aeCKOny-Q

I can see how an out of shape man could successfully chase a high school football player and catch him. I can't put myself in his shoes either,because I wouldn't chance getting some sort of foot fungus.

What about you G-man? Avoiding the chance of fungus and keeping your own shoes on, would you feel you had the right to defend against someone who had not identified themselves, chased you, and were now making a move as if reaching for a gun?

Of course I would. What case are you referring to, given your so-called fact pattern? It doesn't sound familiar to me.

Like I've said before, If a Black Man is attacked and fights back, he's only allowed to take an ass-whooping. How dare he get the upper hand after he is attacked. If he does get the upper hand he has to die.

This whole thread is ridiculous. Putting oneself in TM's shoes is irrelevant and a distraction. TM had a say in how the events transpired that night. We've examined the facts and can make a reasonable understanding of what happened at key moments. There can therefore be a judgement made on the legality of those actions. There is no need to know how someone felt. Feelings are biased and subjective.

MikeyA

This whole thing has been about Zimmerman's feelings of fear from the start- feelings that he got wrong because his paranoia (more feeling) got the best of him. The only thing Zimmerman forgot to feel was empathy for the way Martin might feel when George made a sudden move toward the vicinity of his weapon.

I agree with this statement you made:

"Feelings are biased and subjective."

That is precisely what made GZ so dangerous. His feelings were biased and subjective.

Sometimes Hispanic people get too fearful.

The act of self defense is in fact an action based on strong feeling, better defined as a "sense". We sense(feel) danger and act accordingly. This is the type of feeling I am talking about with Martin. I contend that Zimmerman's hand motion toward his hip would have caused a sense of danger in Trayvon to the point where Martin acted.

Zimmerman can have his "not guilty" verdict. There was not enough evidence to prove otherwise, but it doesn't mean he didn't start the whole mess, including the fight. And, it doesn't mean Martin had to die.

"I contend that Zimmerman's hand motion toward his hip would have caused a sense of danger in Trayvon to the point where Martin acted."

You have no evidence that that occurred. Only a particularly poisonous ideology, called Liberalism... which causes you to hallucinate or something. Get some medication.

"Zimmerman can have his "not guilty" verdict."

Yes, he can, and he does, and there's nothing you can do about it but bleat sheepishly about it on blogs. You were never part of the decision-making apparatus. (Luckily.)

But you can be part of the decision-making apparatus in your own state, Ohio. Right? So get cracking on making an appeal to your state legislator to convert the common law of self defense into some farcical post-event review process that allows a sitting panel of Liberals just like you to stomp the next Zimmerman in Ohio into the dirt as he allegedly deserved, considering that (according to you) Zimmerman caused the entire thing and got away with murder of a poor innocent unarmed kid who was a few shades darker in skin color.

Post your letter to the legislator here so that we can get yet another good laugh at how fucking demented Liberals really are.

Did you watch George's reenactment? I gave you the link.

You have no evidence that that occurred. Only a particularly poisonous ideology, called Liberalism... which causes you to hallucinate or something. Get some medication.

We have Zimmerman himself telling what he did right before he got punched.

GZ didn't shoot because he felt threatened. He was actually threatened.

This is proof by TM was on top of him straddling him ramming his head into the ground. GuestZero claims that as proof that TM started the confrontation but I don't make that leap. It does show that when confronted TM was aggressive as that position is a very aggressive one and held in conjunction with the injuries to GZ and the lack of injuries to TM essentially proves it.

MikeyA

life-threatening injuries Zimmerman suffered at the hands of the skinny, unarmed teenager?

Remind me once more. please...how many weeks was Zimmerman in the hospital recovering from this life-threatening mauling? Can you reproduce the pictures of Zimmerman's bulging bumps, and severe wounds and bruises, please?

Whine, whine, whine. Poor little Georgie!
Wait. Is George a fat slob. as another poster has written?
Or is he really just a small, little guy as you imply?

You conservatives get so emotional!

The Z-man had his head smashed on the concrete. If this isn't a threat, it will do until a threat comes along.

After all, a Black Man has no right to subdue someone who is trying to attack him.

I know, but he has EVERY right to sing the blues.

But it DOES mean the Z-man is running around loose, free as a bird.

I am sure that if Zimmerman could relive that night, he would stay in his vehicle and wait for the police to arrive.
I've actually spoken with people who have killed. Even when justified, they would rather have not killed.
It's so easy to say that Zimmerman is fine. Ask HIM!

"Free as a bird?"
I guess that depends upon your definition of "free."

I can just picture you, laying there awake at night, hoping that Zimmerman is doing the same. Well, at least one of you is losing sleep over it. LOL!

Have you ever killed someone?
Have you ever discussed what it's like to kill someone with someone who had actually killed someone?
What makes you an expert on the psychological effects of killing another human being?
Is this yet another case of you spouting off your vacuous opinion without any credentials?
Only George knows how well or how poorly he sleeps at night.

BTW -- I sleep very well! But, then again, I've never killed anyone.

fact that Zimmerman, the wuss, OUTWEIGHED MARTIN BY AT LEAST 40 POUNDS!! Martin was being chased by a MUCH BIGGER FULL ADULT MALE, and he is not supposed to defend himself.

In addition, if Martin really pummeled Zimmerman so badly that Zimmerman feared for his very life, WHERE ARE ALL OF ZIMMERMAN'S SERIOUS WOUNDS, BRUISES, AND BUMPS? HOW MANY WEEKS DID ZIMMERMAN SPEND IN THE HOSPITAL? OR WAS IT DAYS? REFRESH MY MEMORY ON THIS ONE. I FORGOT HOW LONG ZIMMERMAN WAS IN THE HOSPITAL!

The whiny conservatives just can't face either the fact that they are supporting a wuss, or that killing a person of color, especially an African-American, especially in the South, is considered by many to be a community service, even if the person killed is a skinny, unarmed teenager just running an errand to pick up Skittles and a soft drink. Too bad for them that Martin didn't have a weapon, or tools of burglary on him.

Just remember, it's Zimmerman who has to live with the fact that he killed a much smaller, unarmed teenager for no good reason. Head smashed over and over again into concrete? Feared for his life? Give me a break! Zimmerman knows the truth. And he has to live with the truth.

"Head smashed over and over again into concrete? Feared for his life? Give me a break!"

Those are the facts. That's the only break you needed.

You must live with the fact for the rest of your own life that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder or even manslaughter. It seems you're losing more sleep than Zimmerman is.

The more you Liberals speak on this issue, the more that people can clearly see that you're 100% against self defense. And that widens the cultural chasm that exists between Liberals and the majority of the nation.

Sadly, having said that in one form or another, you can't even fit it into your blockish skull. Liberal ideology is as much a trap for weak Whites, as is Black culture a trap for young Black males. Liberal ideology is based on absurdities... things which are patently wrong to any sane person. Thomas Sowell (note: he's Black) noted long ago about all the faults of "the left". Doubly sadly, Liberals just ignore him, ironically making their position even more absurd.

"forensic evidence." What "forensic evidence" supports Zimmerman's claim that his head was smashed repeatedly into concrete? Where are the severe lacerations? Where are the large bumps? Where are the bruises?
Did you ever play sports, Chicken Little? Did you ever get hit hard just once? I have had significant bumps and bruises from sports activity. I admit that I have never been in a knock-down, drag-out fight, but I have had injuries in sports, and from a traffic accident that was fatal for one person. I know I spent 6 days in a hospital after that, and stayed with friends for about 10 more days before my wife and I could return to our home, with help from others for several weeks. What was Zimmerman's "recovery" time? How many weeks or days did Zimmerman spend in the hospital, after this terrible beating that put him in fear for his life? Please remind me!
Of course he was "beaten" by a skinny teenager whom he outweighed by at least 40 pounds, the wuss! It took a brave man to pull out that gun and blow away this skinny, unarmed teenager, all right!

Or a man in fear for his life.

"...a man in fear for his life?" from a skinny, unarmed teenager he outweighed by at least 40 pounds?
What a wuss!

Given my druthers, I'll take being a wuss over being a large worm castle any day.

This is awesome. I couldn't have paid to have a better sounding board than you, Dale. I'd owe you a beer if I didn't despise you militant Liberals so much.

You're only emphasizing why Liberals are against self defense. Left to Liberals, our self defense justification would nearly require a notarized note from our mothers before we were ever permitted to legally defend ourselves.

You whittle and chip away at any defense event until you find some total horseshit to invalidate the defensive act. What you're saying now is pretty much the equivalent of "you weren't hurt enough by Martin to have used a weapon to defend yourself". You Liberals are so lost in that losing narrative that you failed to notice that Americans don't agree with you about that at all.

As it stands, most Americans like having a comprehensive ability to defend themselves from harm, ANY harm. They don't need to submit to some effete Liberals like yourself, for justification based upon your judgment (largely based on ideological objection) of the severity of the threat. If attacked, they can just pull out a weapon and directly, even fatally harm the attacker until they deem the threat is over. This is the only way to run self defense. You Liberals will never admit it. That's why Liberalism is dying off.

I understand now. Overweight, out of shape man running like a gazelle will each and every time catch a lean high school football player. As all even marginally intelligent people SAW, if there is one thing Zimmerman doesn't even faintly resemble, it's a fast runner. What WUSS is? If I was lurking around a bad neighborhood, I would be carrying-period. I can't run, but I'm still prepared. And I also don't run errands for anyone--they run errands for ME.

is built like a small linebacker! Your characterization is more conservative whining!
Zimmerman knows the truth. And he has to live with that reality. I feel sorry for him. He and his life will never be the same.

Zimmerman will do fine-after all he's still alive.

Only if he has no conscience!

Conscience is highly overrated. I'll take my life, and call it a day.

You are NOT George Zimmerman.

Z-man will do just fine, but your concern for his conscience is quite touching.

YOU ARE NOT GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!

You really want to get into the wine-ing?

Apparently, even the mention of wine makes thou protesteth too much.

Now whining is what you do best, just like the other ideological conservatives here who can't stand criticism of someone they admire who took a life for no good reason. Just keep whining away. I will keep drinking my one glass of red wine per day, as my doctors wish.

Prove that it was a "bad neighborhood."
FYI, G-MAN...
Merriam-Webster -- wuss: a weak or cowardly person.
Urban dictionary -- wuss: A person who is physically weak and ineffectual. Often a male person with low courage factor.

Your eyes are a little fuzzy. What I saw in court was an overweight soft fat slob, with no athletic ability at all.

In other words...a wuss?

The sizes of the men were inconsequential to me as it mattered little toward the physical evidence. One was not killed by strangulation, body blows, or through their wrestling. The use of the gun made any size advantage null so I never paid much attention to it.

But because Dale made it an issue here I looked it up. He described GZ as a "football player" and a much larger man.

When you look up the two men's sizes Tm was 6'2'' 160 lbs, GZ was 5'7'' with no weight listed but reports of his weight range from 170 to 200. At his trial he was 200 lbs. But he gained considerable weight from the incident to the trial as seen in photos. That puts his weight closer to the 170. So let's split hairs and say 185.

6'2'' 160 compared to 5'7'' 185. I would not call GZ the "larger" man and he's definitely not the size of a football player. Look through any football roster and you will find many players TM's size and few GZ's size.

But as I've previously said their size doesn't matter. But looking at Dale's description of it and one can see again how there is a concerted effort on one side of this issue to ignore the facts and base a determination solely upon how they feel about it.

MikeyA

Where is the "physical evidence" of the injuries someone would receive after having their head pounded repeatedly into pavement? Where?
And if "size doesn't matter," why are there weight classes in boxing, wrestling, and MMA contests? You are right about one thing. If Martin had had a gun, the difference in size would have been negated. In this case, THE LARGER PERSON HAD THE GUN!!

My conclusion -- Zimmerman is a wuss!
Keep defending the wuss!
Whine away!
You conservatives are just so emotional!

They should see grief counselors.

I listened to the interview Zimmerman had with the police after he killed Martin. It's very clear that the police were complicit in developing Zimmerman's BS story. I'm not surprised. It's very common that police will conspire with non-white perpetrators when a Black person is involved.

It is not common, but I'll agree that it sometimes does happen.

And here's the other thing I've warned you Liberals about: The more you demonize the police, the more you lose connection with the common man of the nation, who is well served by police actions.

You Liberals are doubling, even tripling down, on the failed ideology of accusing everyone (except Liberals) of endless racism. You're manic... desperate to regain cultural supremacy. You lost on the gun issue; you lost on the 1% issue; now you're losing on the race issue.

the vast majority. But, I am spoiled in that I have lived in the Toledo area my whole life. I knew African-American police officers back in the 1960s! The two I knew well were great guys and thoroughly professional. I have also worked with police officers as a Toledo teacher. They were all thoroughly professional as well. I have never lived in the South, nor have I spent a lot of time in the South. There are different societal norms and standards there.
The main problem was the vigilante attitude adopted by Zimmerman. If he had it to do all over again, wouldn't he have listened to the sound advice from the professional dispatcher to just stay in his vehicle? I honestly feel sorry for him. His life is ruined now, and for the foreseeable future.

Dale, I'm not certain that Zimmerman wouldn't do the whole thing over again.

Zimmerman has been in trouble with the law several times since the shooting of Trayvon Martin, wack job stuff like road rage and domestic violence. Ironically, Zimmerman has had more run ins with the law than Martin ever had. I'm not sure why the right wingers love him so much. Apparently they can relate to him.

It's not love. It's expecting our legal process to work through findings of fact.

That the liberal side keeps distorting facts and basing a decision solely on feeling keeps the issue coming up.

GZ may be a piece of shit. I don't know. I don't care. What I know is he was justified in shooting TM. Both he and TM do hold responsibility for what happened but TM was not "hunted" as ZC has said.

MikeyA

You actually don't know if Zimmerman was justified or not. No one knows. The evidence could not prove one way or the other. When that is the case you cannot convict, especially in 2nd degree murder where you have to prove ill will. Plus, since the evidence could not prove one way or the other, Martin did not automatically become guilty with Zimmerman's acquittal. Have you tried looking this up?

And he has to live with what he did that night.
Does anyone really believe that Zimmerman wouldn't want to relive that fateful night?

It would be nice to think so. I'd like to believe he would want to do it differently, but what if he is like his many supporters arguing against the good common sense of staying in the car.

He should find a good support group

Not guilty means justified. Meaning good in the view of justice aka the court.

MikeyA

C'mon now, there are TWELVE people who most certainly DO know the Z-man was justified!

The main problem was homeboy bit off more than he could chew. This is the United States, if somebody wants to get out of their vehicle, they have every goddamned right to do just that.

You are right, but they don't have the right to hunt an innocent teenage boy like an animal and then kill the boy because the boy won't take an ass-whooping.

Hunters shoot animals at a long distance and don't wait for the animal to attack first.

My belief is that Zimmerman didn't intend to shoot Martin when he left the car. Zimmerman's hero wan-t to -be genes kicked in and he went hunting. Zimmerman found him and then tried to kick Martin's ass. Instead, Martin bobbed and weaved defending himself and Zimmerman grabbed him. They both fell to the ground with Martin on top. Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk to subdue his attacker. Zimmerman pulled his gun from his belt when Martin began to retreat.. Zimmerman, who resented the ass-whooping he had just received, shot Martin. If Martin had successfully subdued Zimmerman, the police should conclude that Martin successfully defended himself from an attacker with a gun.But this is not the story the survivor told. Instead, Zimmerman told several different versions coherence d by the police. After all, the police knew that they had to find a way to make sure the Black Man was at fault.

Z-man pulled his gun and SHOT, and then the other one could no longer restart his withdrawal.

And here's another thing that Dale and the rest of the Liberal Street Irregulars have attempted to point out by implication: Use of a weapon to defend yourself is somehow cowardly. That's why Dale uses the term "wuss" all the time.

But that just alienates every woman reading this thread, doesn't it? Guns are called the "great equalizers" for exactly the reason of "wussiness". Dale and the rest don't want women defending themselves. They don't want the weak defending themselves, either. After all, one of their diversity pets could get harmed that way, and that's a sin against Liberalism.

Once again, Liberalism is totally against American cultural values and it's dying off. Before it finally sinks back into the juvenile mire from which it sprang, however, Liberalism has quite a bit of social damage to do. And it's going to be loud and nonsensical.

Not only that GZ, liberalism by nature is self destructive in the end.

apologists. How many weeks or days did Zimmerman spend in the hospital recovering from the severe beating he took which made him fearful for his life?
Please show pictures of George Zimmerman's life-threatening severe bumps, bruises, and wounds. I can't remember what they looked like.
And, yes, I will remind all of you whiny apologist so-called conservatives that Zimmerman outweighed the unarmed teenager he feared so much by at least 40 (maybe as much as 60!) pounds. And, yes, IMHO that makes Zimmerman a wuss!

Again, this is inconsequential.

A threat to one's life does not have to end in hospitalization. GZ has wounds, they're clear in the pictures. So they're a fact. Unless if you're arguing that they are faked.

GZ doesn't have to have more injuries for your liking for the shooting to be justified. All he has to prove is he his life was threatened (and in states without a stand your ground that fleeing was not an option). TM made it to where GZ could not flee, at all. That GZ didn't pull his weapon prior to getting in that position shows he used restraint as it applied to his weapon.

You keep saying 60 pounds but this is incorrect. Even at GZ's weight being the highest he was 200 lbs. That is not 60 lbs. And TM was taller by 5 full inches.

MikeyA

had his head smashed repeatedly into pavement. I know that you are knowledgeable about injuries. Are you really putting forth the position that a person who has his head smashed repeatedly into pavement, so much so that he is in fear for his life, walks away with a couple of little bandages? Really, Mikey?!

As I stated above, I have had friends with worse injuries slipping off of a curb than Zimmerman had after having his head was, allegedly, smashed repeatedly into pavement.
Give me a break, Mikey!

Whine away!
Poor little Georgie!
You conservatives are just so emotional!

Since when is a wuss a sober, combat proficient marksman?

put false words into the mouths of those whom you perceive to be your political enemies, instead of arguing the facts! Really! You're all so emotional!

FYI -- I totally approve of self defense. And I have not seen any post here which stated that the poster was against self-defense. As I have stated before, when my daughter's in-laws had a stranger break into their home, and her father-in-law shot at the guy, he was fully justified in what he did, whether the criminal was armed or not! And, he was never charged with any crime! Duh!
However, it is not self-defense when the killer is not in fear for his life. (I know that I'm repeating myself once again), but where are the terrible injuries Zimmerman suffered? Where is the "forensic evidence" of the "extreme" attack by the deceased, skinny, unarmed, teenage victim, which placed Zimmerman in fear for his life? Where is all the so-called physiological damage from having his head smashed over and over again into pavement? The way I saw it, Zimmerman walked away under his own power, shortly after being treated, with less bandaging than some of my friends have had when they tripped and fell off of a curb!

It appears to me to be a clear case of vigilantism. Zimmerman wanted to be a hero. (Obviously, to some, he is!) The wuss hid behind a gun. That's not self defense. It's at least manslaughter. Once again, a finding of "Not Guilty" is NOT the same as a finding of innocent or justifiable homicide. Murder is one of the hardest crimes to prosecute successfully.

Using your own example.

If injuries dictate how much one can fear for your life then your daught's in-laws were not justified in using life taking force. What injuries did they sustain?

To be in a situation that threatens ones life they only need to know that they have a significant chance of being hurt. That GZ has injuries to the back of his head proves this. If not, how did GZ get the injuries to the back of his head?

It's not a clear case. That's the point. To you, but as I've shown you're "standard" of what constitutes self defense moves and your "facts" are routinely wrong like saying GZ outweighed TM by 60lbs.

It is a justifiable homicide because it's not guilty. Innocent depends upon how you define innocent. But it most certainly is justifiable, if it wasn't GZ would have been found guilty or a hung jury. They didn't do either, they came back with not guilty.

MikeyA

the use of force. Are you really that dense, Mikey?

Zimmerman CHOSE to place himself in a more dangerous situation than if he had just stayed in his vehicle. He was on"neutral" ground. Zimmerman, by his own testimony, chose to NOT RETURN to his vehicle. He started to return, but stopped, and did not return. These are his words, not mine.

"It's not a clear case. That's the point." And that's why it's so hard to prove murder! DUH!
The only eye witness who could refute Zimmerman's latest revision of his story is DEAD!

Look. I'm glad that you self-proclaimed "law and order" types are so happy with returning this admitted killer to our society unpunished. I'm not.
Personally, I'm glad that OJ is behind bars, for example. That's where those who kill for no good reason belong.

Just keep whining away...emotional, whiny conservatives!

Mikeya, here is a link that will hopefully help you to understand why Zimmerman was found not guilty.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-why-this-verdict/

for posting the link.

The story is highly unlikely. First, this was created before the jurors started commenting, and they have commented.

A manslaughter indictment would have also been found not guilty because the Florida description of manslaughter. It's an act that unwillingly causes a death. Shooting someone at close range is not unwilling. So it's probably more likely that it would have been found not guilty and if he was it's even a higher likelihood it would have been overturned on appeal because the 2nd murder charge as your link says "fit the bill".

The evidence is the evidence. If they support one side of the story then that's what you have to go with. Every scenario the TM side has presented is not plausible or cavalier with the facts.

The testimonies, as I have stated before, testimonies are biased and unreliable. Plus there is no witness to the crime making them both in question.

MikeyA

Specially when the defendant is innocent.

But, sour grapes are still sour grapes.

You're a little confused on the definitions of manslaughter.

To convict someone of Manslaughter by Act, it would have to be proved that the act that caused death was intentional and not excusable. The evidence could not prove an intention that was not excusable, hence the not guilty verdict.

In our legal system Martin is not automatically determined to be guilty by Zimmerman's not guilty verdict. Sorry, that is just the way it is. If you would do a little research you would know.

"In our legal system Martin is not automatically determined to be guilty by Zimmerman's not guilty verdict. Sorry, that is just the way it is. If you would do a little research you would know." In ANY legal system the dead aren't affected by ANY form of legal proceeding.

Florida statute 782.07. Subparagraph (1) explains that it must be charged as "Felony of the 2nd degree"

Not wrong. You're reading it through a generic reading of manslaughter. Florida law speciifcally outlines what can be deemed a manslaughter and deaths through use of a firearm are specifically outlined in the stand your ground defense.

Meaning, the stand your ground law would have been used in a manslaughter defense. It was actually NOT invoked during the trial as the defense would ask for a separate SYG hearing.

Had they chosen to charge him with manslaughter the defense most likely would have asked for the hearing. The hearing without a jury could have had the whole case thrown out.

The jury was told they could convict on the lesser charge of manslaughter if they could not convict on 2nd degree. So this way the prosecution got two shots at him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360397/George-Zimmerman-trial-J... It still didn't meet the legal definition of manslaughter by Florida law.

MikeyA

Mikeya,
Florida statute 782.07. Subparagraph (1) does not equate manslaughter with 2nd degree murder.
“Second degree” simply refers to the types of punishments given for a crime. There are many second degree crimes. The statute you cited is just telling us that manslaughter is one of the many serious crimes which carry prison time as a punishment.

I recommend you go read the statute.

They don't call things "first degree murder" and "2nd degree murder" what they do is out line murder in general then in sub paragraphs outline the punishments as to what degree it is. Second degree murder therefore is "felony 2nd degree".

MikeyA

No Mikeya, manslaughter and second degree murder are defined as separate crimes. For that matter, not all manslaughter is even the same. There are actually three separate types of manslaughter that are well defined in Florida law.

What you do not understand is the term “felony 2nd degree”.
When the statute you cited says manslaughter is a “felony in the 2nd degree” it is referring to the severity of the crime and the type of punishment that goes with the crime. It doesn't mean second degree murder. Many different crimes are 2nd degree felonies. Rape is a felony 2nd degree. Arson is a felony 2nd degree. The list goes on. Second degree felonies are serious crimes that come with serious prison time.

By the way, in Florida not all manslaughter is felony 2nd degree. Manslaughter of an elderly person is actually a first degree felony in Florida.

Ok, so do me this. Go to the statute on murder and find 2nd degree murder and cite it for me.

MikeyA

Sure Mikeya, here you go...

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about- how the term “felony of __ degree” differs from the definition of the crime. Thank you for suggesting this.

Here is Florida's definition of murder in the second degree:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

In a nutshell, it explains that murder in the second degree(2nd degree murder) is not premeditated murder. That's how it is different from first degree murder. Then it goes on to tell the severity and range of the punishment the crime brings by telling us it constitutes “a felony of the first degree”, meaning the punishment falls within the range of punishment for first degree felony crimes. It falls within the same range because 2nd degree murder can get you life in prison, similar to 1st degree murder if they don't use the death penalty.

This is all kind of off the subject, but at least you discuss things.

PMW thank you for the source. It appears I am wrong on this point.

The source I was using, which I've used for other laws, compartmentalizes Florida's. So when referencing it I had to click on multiple links and it wasn't user friendly.

Using the verbage you posted I was able to pull it right up. So I will concede your point and thank you for the citation.

MikeyA

I appreciate your last line. What more could learn is that debating is about the exchange of information and being correct is more important than being "right".

MikeyA

Mikey -- GREAT comment!

Mikeya, so many members of this site just seem to want to blurt out insults and not discuss things. I've noticed that you are not one of those. We all have our moments, but if you post something you have given it some thought, and looked up information. That's what I wish we had more of here.

PMW -- Bravo!

Two shots,and two misses.

Isn't this really old news?

It is not only old news, it is getting older by the second! Three people keep posting new threads about the situation--they cannot accept the finality of the outcome of the case. I much prefer to move on with my life.

The problem is militant Liberalism. At least we know there are limits to it... we stopped hearing about Columbine and Sandy Hook, after all. Eventually, the Liberals DO just shut up when they finally figure out that they're heavily out-numbered.

One of these days the Liberals will figure out that the real racism in the nation is performed by Blacks and Liberals.

The way I see it is, the liberals only shut up is like you said, when a better and better bandwagon stops by. Look at all their new threads here. Nothing other than rehashing Z-man, and EVERY possible permutation of the case involving the shooting.

The trial may be over, but everybody knows that Z-Man is not innocent.

But he is alive and well, and free. You gotta admit-three out of three ain't all bad.

are much more subjective.
You are NOT George Zimmerman.
I doubt if HE feels either "well" or "free."

Eventually, the Liberals DO just shut up when they finally figure out that they're heavily out-numbered.
Sometimes they shut up when they figure out they've been arguing with idiots.

Or they just burn down their own community. Because that apparently solves something. What it solves I have no idea.

MikeyA

And LOSING to those same idiots.

I can hardly stop laughing enough to type this out. Help! My sides are aching!

See what I mean here about Dale and the militant Liberals, folks? Liberalism is poisonous to the American way of life. Just imagine if you had to justify the LEVEL of force you used after you survived an attack. A panel of Liberals would sit there and arbitrarily decide that you "didn't get hurt enough" to justify pulling out a weapon to defend yourself with. Liberals totally miss the point that you defend yourself to STOP the damage becoming more severe.

Dale and the rest of his ilk have fatally compromised themselves in the public eye. But militant Liberals are fantastically dumb, and they just don't realize this at all. No, they continue to spout their anti-American, anti-self-defense garbage as if continued stupidity will obtain more adherents to their cause... said cause being a wholesale granting of law-enforcement immunity to Blacks. Racism is the primary driver of the Liberal anti-self-defense ideology. Pure and simple.

Everybody in the US should be granted total amnesty for 72 hours.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.