In the matter of George Zimmerman

[protectmd]

There is nothing in the law that allows for someone that is being followed – a legal action – to react with violence. The only time you can react with violence is when you are confronted with violence. Following someone is not an act of violence.

Self defense is using force that is reasonable and necessary to stop your attacker. If we can agree on that.

The question becomes, was Mr. Martins's attack violent enough to justify the use of deadly force? The answer to that is this.

While the initial attack of a punch to the face, or an ambush on Mr. Zimmerman might not have been enough to shoot Mr.Martin, I can tell you that the point where Mr. Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman punching him in the face and slamming his head off of the concrete would have been justification. Case and point, there was an individual who was having their head slammed off of concrete in a Bar parking lot and died as a result of the internal brain bleeding. Mr. Martin's actions could have knocked Mr. Zimmerman unconscious, or killed him. Therefore, his option to make Mr. Martin stop doing this action to him would have been to shoot him to make him stop.

If Mr. Zimmerman had blacked out, and Mr. Martin had searched him and gotten ahold of his gun, Mr. Zimmerman would be a deadman.

In police, military, whatever training you take involving a firearm, they tell you to protect your gun at all costs, even if it means taking the other person's life. You cannot let that person get your firearm. If a police officer was ambushed in the same manner by an assailant that had the upper hand, due to size, weight, reach, training, experience, etc, I can tell you that the cop would discharge his firearm to save his/her own life against that individual and "stop the threat" as the term is used, "in fear for life and safety." People may not be happy with this, but its a reality. Go and try and take a cops gun and see what happens. The FBI puts on a class called Law Enforcement Officers Killed in Action LEOKA. They have a division that goes out and reviews violent assaults on law enforcement all over America. They have video's and interviews of what happens when an individual gains control of the situation and the officers weapon. The dirtbag almost always kills the officer with that weapon once they gain control of it. This is why anytime a cop carry's a badge its smart that he/she carries a gun, because if they find out your a cop and they are robbing the place, they more than often will kill you.

But because Mr. Zimmerman is not a cop, this is being scrutinized. He is not afforded the protects of case law from the Supreme court as some cops are. He is not afforded LEOBR, powerful FOP attorney's, and in some cases county/state attorneys to represent the officer in civil court. He was afforded the protection of a "stand your ground hearing" but he waived that right. Without the stand your ground hearing, he is at the mercy of whatever a jury decides. If I was in his situation, I would have gone the "stand your ground" hearing route. It has a long history and many case law that favors the right to self defense, along with many hours of expert testimony on shooting individuals armed with hands/feet, knives, bats, clubs, etc, and why the citizen had the right to shoot that person when that person came at them in a threatening and menacing manner.

 

[Gilligan]

You seem to be adding stuff that isn't into evidence and nobody has testified to.

Seems to be adding stuff?? That's practically all he's done, in a desperate but perplexing attempt to make Zimmerman out to be a criminal.

It's funny how invested some people can become in a position, once they've taken it; evidence be damned.

 

[abcxyz]

Lessons from this trial:

- Don't call the po-po when some one is acting suspicious (which is subjective, what I call suspicious may not be what you call suspicious), being a good citizen can and will be used against you

- When being attacked, start popping caps

- Don't talk to any one but my lawyer

- Go on with life without giving Obama any more kid look-a-likes

 

[protectmd]

If you believe a creepy person is following you, I would think you would want the law to check it out to identify that creepy person. If someone is annoying you to the point that you are going to assault them, I think its best to contact the authorities.

Are you saying if a "creepy ass cracker" is following me, then I should call 911?

Define "creepy or suspicious."

This is the problem we have now. People call 911 and cops that have minimal training in constitutional law respond out in an effort to violate civil rights. Cops that don't understand that a mere 911 call stating "theres a suspicious subject on my block and its a black male wearing a white teeshirt" is not enough for a Terry stop. What is he doing thats "suspicious" which is the operative word? If a cop had a defense attorney riding with him, im sure the outcomes of many situations would be different. MSP learned their lesson, and have to fill out race based traffic stop data reporting. PG learned their lesson with use of force and the reporting protocols as a result of the misuse over the years.

Whats worse is people call 911 for just about everything. In the DC/PG/NoVa call centers, they are flooded with calls about "suspicious males playing basketball in the street" or "my generator is making noise." To be frank, these are the more sane call's that come in. Lets not forget the crazies that call in and ramble with call takers, citing witchcraft and sorcery taking place in their neighborhood, demanding police/fire response to their location.

Perhaps suspicious is code term for being a young black male in America wearing a white teeshirt? Or a white kid with baggy jeans and a hoodie? Maybe suspicious is a hispanic kid with some tattoo's walking to the gas station?

The reality is, suspicious is the totality of the circumstances in any case. A citizen walking towards a jewelry store wearing all black and a ski mask. 2 men entering a bank with bags wearing gloves, sunglasses, hats and heavy coats in July. Several men loitering in front of a store that has a sign that states "No Loitering" and frequently gets robbed after dark, who haven't visibly purchased anything from the store and are looking out for cops instead of conducting business transactions and shopping for items.

Maybe America needs a law class in school to classify whats suspicious and whats not.

 

[Hank]

It's funny how invested some people can become in a position, once they've taken it; evidence be damned.

Isn't that what you do with the supposed "head bashing"? According to testimony Zimmernman's injuries were insignificant.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Isn't that what you do with the supposed "head bashing"? According to testimony Zimmernman's injuries were insignificant.

Should Zimmerman have waited until they were worse before shooting?

In the back of his mind, he should have thought, "These injuries won't hold up in court, I better wait a bit longer."?

 

[abcxyz]

I answered "suspicious" in my post above yours.

It is kind of like pain- what may be a 7 on a 1-10 scale to you may only be a 4 for me on the same scale.

100% subjective. I have a compound fractured leg, you have a simple broken ankle- we both could be at a pain level of 10 even with mine being a much more severe injury than yours.

If GZ says he feared for his life, nobody can ever disprove that he didn't. Nobody. Ever. Now if he was he justified fearing for his life is a different story but nobody can ever say that he didn't if he did (and isn't lying about feeling that way, which I don't think he is).

GZ says he was suspicious, than he was and nobody can disprove that.

 

[Midnightrider]

Seems to be adding stuff?? That's practically all he's done, in a desperate but perplexing attempt to make Zimmerman out to be a criminal.

It's funny how invested some people can become in a position, once they've taken it; evidence be damned.

Kind if like you guys and the gymnastics you are doing to call Martin suspicious and a thug.

 

[Hank]

Should Zimmerman have waited until they were worse before shooting?

In the back of his mind, he should have thought, "These injuries won't hold up in court, I better wait a bit longer."?

Doesn't jive with his story.

 

[itsrequired]

Are you saying if a "creepy ass cracker" is following me, then I should call 911?

Define "creepy or suspicious."

This is the problem we have now. People call 911 and cops that have minimal training in constitutional law respond out in an effort to violate civil rights. Cops that don't understand that a mere 911 call stating "theres a suspicious subject on my block and its a black male wearing a white teeshirt" is not enough for a Terry stop. What is he doing thats "suspicious" which is the operative word? If a cop had a defense attorney riding with him, im sure the outcomes of many situations would be different. MSP learned their lesson, and have to fill out race based traffic stop data reporting. PG learned their lesson with use of force and the reporting protocols as a result of the misuse over the years.

Apples and oranges. MSP was profiling people based on a variety of things going on with their vehicle. Police respond all the time to civil issues and mediate these issues. Just because a person doesn't commit a crime doesn't prevent police from asking the persons questions. Who said anything to do with a terry stop? Are you suggesting the police need probable cause or a reasonable articuable suspision crime is afoot in order to speak with someone? You really don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps suspicious is code term for being a young black male in America wearing a white teeshirt? Or a white kid with baggy jeans and a hoodie? Maybe suspicious is a hispanic kid with some tattoo's walking to the gas station?


Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. There are suspicious persons calls on people of every race.


The reality is, suspicious is the totality of the circumstances in any case. A citizen walking towards a jewelry store wearing all black and a ski mask. 2 men entering a bank with bags wearing gloves, sunglasses, hats and heavy coats in July. Several men loitering in front of a store that has a sign that states "No Loitering" and frequently gets robbed after dark, who haven't visibly purchased anything from the store and are looking out for cops instead of conducting business transactions and shopping for items.

Maybe America needs a law class in school to classify whats suspicious and whats not.

Suspicious can be in the eye of the beholder. The police respond to citizen complaints and unfound them all the time. You don't need a boilerplate for a suspicious incident. The one thing you said is it depends on the totality of circumstance.

 

[protectmd]

Isn't that what you do with the supposed "head bashing"? According to testimony Zimmernman's injuries were insignificant.

According to a lay person, or person with minimal medical training and experience. These individuals did not testify as expert witnesses in their field.

Im sure a competent ER doctor or trauma specialist would tell you that the slightest head injury could cause brain bleeding, swelling, concussion, coma and death. This is what the NFL is going through right now, because many players are complaining of injury that has been caused by the contact sport. Consider this, Mr. Zimmerman's head made contact with that hard concrete wearing no helmet.

 

[Hank]

According to a lay person, or person with minimal medical training and experience. These individuals did not testify as expert witnesses in their field.

Im sure a competent ER doctor or trauma specialist would tell you that the slightest head injury could cause brain bleeding, swelling, concussion, coma and death. This is what the NFL is going through right now, because many players are complaining of injury that has been caused by the contact sport. Consider this, Mr. Zimmerman's head made contact with that hard concrete wearing no helmet.

So, a medical examiner is your average "lay person"? Interesting.

 

[itsrequired]

Kind if like you guys and the gymnastics you are doing to call Martin suspicious and a thug.

I never called Martin a thug. Zimmerman called him suspicious and I think if you took your blinders off the behavior Zimmerman described showed that Martin was suspicious.

 

[Midnightrider]

In the state of FL I am violating no law by following someone. If that person decides to turn around a start a conflict, THAT person has now violated the law and at that point I am allowed to exercise my ‘stand-your-ground’ right. My following someone is not justification for the person being followed to react with violence against me.

If someone was following me, and I was doing nothing wrong, I might inclined to ask why they are following me, or I might find a police officer for my own protection. I would NOT turn around, with no questions asked, and pop them in the nose then proceed to pummel them on the ground.

You keep dismissing that following someone is not illegal. It is not justification for the person being followed to react with violence. You keep dismissing the fact this community suffered a lot of recent burglaries. You keep dismissing that Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch and felt a duty to keep a more keen eye on his neighborhood. You keep dismissing that Zimmerman felt Martin was suspicious and he was perfectly within his right to follow Martin. It doesn’t matter whether YOU believe Martin was suspicious or not. The jury has heard that Zimmerman said HE THOUGHT Martin’s behavior was suspicious. And you keep dismissing the fact that the actual conflict did not occur as a direct result of Zimmerman following Martin. Zimmerman broke off following when he asked to. Zimmerman was headed back to his vehicle. Martin had an opportunity to go home. He chose to confront Zimmerman. He chose to use violence against Zimmerman.

There is nothing in the law that allows for someone that is being followed – a legal action – to react with violence. The only time you can react with violence is when you are confronted with violence. Following someone is not an act of violence.

You are going to get yourself in the same boat as Zimmerman if you go around following people believing that you aren't beginning a conflict.

If the person you are following believes that you mean them harm they have the right under floridas SYG to defend themselves.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Doesn't jive with his story.

What doesn't?

 

[protectmd]

In reference to the medical examiner question...

Was the medical examiner qualified as an expert witness? For this trial or many times before? What is their training and experience?

In reference to police needing probable cause or reasonable suspicion to speak to someone, they need it to question someone in reference to a crime, but the real question becomes is that person free to go? When the police officer is talking to or questioning the individual, are they free to leave, or is it a detention? (You are absolutely correct, a cop can say "hi" or "hows your day" to any citizen he/she wants to, but when they tell you sit down and start questioning an individual that has become a seizure of that person and their effects, because they are not free to leave, and disobedience to the "lawful order" to sit down to be questioned may result in the arrest of that individual.) Itsrequired, you act like your the know all expert on law. If you are a cop, and you live by your version of the constitution, its likely that your arrests for subject stop's might hold up in a small time court room, but if appealed to higher courts, they would be torn to shreds and often result in more "police training" and civil lawsuits against whatever government entity you serve. It must really upset you when individuals take off running from you and you catch them and realize theres no law in Maryland for fleeing from a police officer on foot. That law only applies to the driver who is not allowed to flee on foot. I guess these are things that you don't want people know.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You are going to get yourself in the same boat as Zimmerman if you go around following people believing that you aren't beginning a conflict.

If the person you are following believes that you mean them harm they have the right under floridas SYG to defend themselves.

Even after police had came to your neighborhood watch meeting and told them to watch them as long as possible so police can identify the person?

That person didn't DEFEND, they hit first. Initiating conflict....according to testimony.

This conversation is like a ####ing Maypole...round and round we go.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

In reference to the medical examiner question...

Was the medical examiner qualified as an expert witness? For this trial or many times before? What is their training and experience?

In reference to police needing probable cause or reasonable suspicion to speak to someone, they need it to question someone in reference to a crime, but the real question becomes is that person free to go? When the police officer is talking to or questioning the individual, are they free to leave, or is it a detention? (You are absolutely correct, a cop can say "hi" or "hows your day" to any citizen he/she wants to, but when they tell you sit down and start questioning an individual that has become a seizure of that person and their effects, because they are not free to leave, and disobedience to the "lawful order" to sit down to be questioned may result in the arrest of that individual.) Itsrequired, you act like your the know all expert on law. If you are a cop, and you live by your version of the constitution, its likely that your arrests for subject stop's might hold up in a small time court room, but if appealed to higher courts, they would be torn to shreds and often result in more "police training" and civil lawsuits against whatever government entity you serve. It must really upset you when individuals take off running from you and you catch them and realize theres no law in Maryland for fleeing from a police officer on foot. That law only applies to the driver who is not allowed to flee on foot. I guess these are things that you don't want people know.

She had substantial training, and has been in the medical field since the 80's.

 

[itsrequired]

In reference to the medical examiner question...

Was the medical examiner qualified as an expert witness? For this trial or many times before? What is their training and experience?

Yes she was qualified as an expert.


In reference to police needing probable cause or reasonable suspicion to speak to someone, they need it to question someone in reference to a crime,

No, they don't. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

but the real question becomes is that person free to go?

Yes, that person they are speaking to is free to go.


Itsrequired, you act like your the know all expert on law. If you are a cop, and you live by your version of the constitution, its likely that your arrests for subject stop's might hold up in a small time court room, but if appealed to higher courts, they would be torn to shreds and often result in more "police training" and civil lawsuits against whatever government entity you serve. It must really upset you when individuals take off running from you and you catch them and realize theres no law in Maryland for fleeing from a police officer on foot. That law only applies to the driver who is not allowed to flee on foot. I guess these are things that you don't want people know.

Really? The Maryland court of special appeals is a small time court? Hmph. What experience do you have with the criminal justice system? Are you a lawyer, cop?

 

[Gilligan]

Isn't that what you do with the supposed "head bashing"? According to testimony Zimmernman's injuries were insignificant.

LOL. Eff the testimony..I simply believe my own lying eyes. Zimmermans head..especially his face..was thoroughly messed up. I hope I would be able to shoot my assailant a lot quicker than Zimmerman did his, should that kind of situation arise.