Zimmerman trial: Neighbor testifies Trayvon Martin was straddling Zimmerman moments before fatal gun - Polidicks

Man if Zimmerman goes free everyone will throw a massive racism boner shitstorm. I predict at least a month of stomach ulcers.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41245589]People were outraged by those shootings, just less so than the Zimmerman one because the Zimmerman-Martin shooting was initially going to not even be investigated, which is a massive red flag. Even defenders like yourself have to realize that when someone is shot in the street there needs to atleast be an investigation to see what happened. This is part of the reason why it's such a hot item for reporters; it was one of the few times actual journalism happened in the US and it embarrassed the Sanford Police into maybe thinking "Oh hey a black teenager was shot to death, maybe we should look into that". For the record though, I wouldn't at all mind more reporting about the shooting death of that escort. Pretty messed up, that dude just straight killed someone who was driving away. As to your defense, I'm still on the side of neutrality so I'm willing to believe either individual started the confrontation, but I have to wonder why Martins character is being so heavily analyzed and broken down. I was a truant in school and said dumb shit over the internet too. Does that make my being shot to death somehow more justified than if I was a perfect attendance student who was a teenager but didn't say dumb shit? The fighting is the same way. He is a teenager. Teenagers fight. It shouldn't be encouraged, and I'm not defending his behavior, but it's something that happens across the country nearly everywhere. He wasn't even shot because of any of these things but because he was acting "suspicious", a charge I have yet to see reasonably defended. Now my qualms with attacking Martins character doesn't necessarily mean I believe Zimmerman started the altercation, and I certainly don't think Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder considering he called the police to report his victim minutes before the shooting. I just don't think all the things you mentioned make Martin guilty of assaulting Zimmerman to the point where self-defense with a gun was the only way out for Zimmerman. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] as for "omg media bias", Fox News has been in Zimmermans corner since day one. CNN is incompetent and sensationalist but nowhere near as effective as generating a fanatical base as Fox is. Not defending CNN, but it cuts both ways, and a lot of conservative blogs and outlets are looking at this as a potential political victory.[/QUOTE] So in this life threatening situation, what would you recommend he had done instead?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41245589]People were outraged by those shootings, just less so than the Zimmerman one because the Zimmerman-Martin shooting was initially going to not even be investigated, which is a massive red flag. Even defenders like yourself have to realize that when someone is shot in the street there needs to atleast be an investigation to see what happened. This is part of the reason why it's such a hot item for reporters; it was one of the few times actual journalism happened in the US and it embarrassed the Sanford Police into maybe thinking "Oh hey a black teenager was shot to death, maybe we should look into that". For the record though, I wouldn't at all mind more reporting about the shooting death of that escort. Pretty messed up, that dude just straight killed someone who was driving away. As to your defense, I'm still on the side of neutrality so I'm willing to believe either individual started the confrontation, but I have to wonder why Martins character is being so heavily analyzed and broken down. I was a truant in school and said dumb shit over the internet too. Does that make my being shot to death somehow more justified than if I was a perfect attendance student who was a teenager but didn't say dumb shit? The fighting is the same way. He is a teenager. Teenagers fight. It shouldn't be encouraged, and I'm not defending his behavior, but it's something that happens across the country nearly everywhere. He wasn't even shot because of any of these things but because he was acting "suspicious", a charge I have yet to see reasonably defended. Now my qualms with attacking Martins character doesn't necessarily mean I believe Zimmerman started the altercation, and I certainly don't think Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder considering he called the police to report his victim minutes before the shooting. I just don't think all the things you mentioned make Martin guilty of assaulting Zimmerman to the point where self-defense with a gun was the only way out for Zimmerman.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone is holding Martin's character as any kind of slam-dunk evidence, just as an additional factor that ties into who likely threw the first punch. IMO why Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious really doesn't matter and is almost irrelevant to the case. Even if Zimmerman were a blatant racist and accosted Martin on account of being black, he would still be justified in self-defense if he were attacked by Martin. Even though it seems likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin contrary to the 911 dispatcher, that doesn't have any bearing on the fight, since you can't throw a punch simply because someone is following you. So the facts we have relating to just the fight and the two individuals involved are these: -Martin had a history of getting in fights and saw himself as a 'gangster'. -Martin had a significant physical advantage over Zimmerman. -Zimmerman had a firearm. -Zimmerman was significantly injured during the altercation. Now, given these facts, I think it is also reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman had his weapon holstered. Why? Well, if he had his weapon drawn, it seems unlikely that Martin would start a fight. And if Zimmerman started the fight with his weapon out, I don't see how he would end up beaten so harshly. Martin might have been many things but I don't think he was stupid enough to try to fight someone with a gun pointed at him. So we have Zimmerman, with his weapon holstered, speaking to Martin. So now the question is, which is more plausible- that Zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood watch, with his weapon holstered, picked a fistfight with a guy significantly taller and younger than him, or that Martin, a self-styled gangster who frequently got in fights and according to one witness was going to 'teach him a lesson' started it? It seems to me like if Zimmerman was a giant racist and meant to do harm to an innocent black man, he'd [i]probably[/i] have his gun out considering said black man was the physically the more imposing of the two. I think it seems more plausible that Martin was the aggressor here. Then we come to the injuries. The nature of the injuries to both parties, plus the eyewitness testimony, pretty clearly suggest that Zimmerman was the one on the ground being straddled and beaten. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, which does not seem likely, he was being seriously injured and could have reason to fear for his life. But the thing that keeps getting overlooked here is that under Florida law, [b]it doesn't matter who started the fight[/b]. See, Florida law has this interesting little quote in the Stand Your Ground law. While normally a person who is the aggressor in a fight cannot claim self-defense, there is an exception that an aggressor can use lethal force to defend themselves when the defender uses force which is [quote]so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.[/quote] What this means is that under Florida law, even if Zimmerman started the fight, if it was Martin who escalated it to a life-or-death situation and Zimmerman had no other recourse, then use of lethal force is justified. Given that all evidence points to Zimmerman being the one on the ground, unable to escape, and with his head being repeatedly and violently slammed into the pavement, then the use of lethal force in this case is justified. So put simply, all this arguing back and forth over why Zimmerman followed Martin and whether he was racist or not and who threw the first punch is all just missing the forest for the trees. Under Florida law, if you're in an altercation and suddenly have reason to fear for your life and can't escape or otherwise defuse the situation, you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself. And that's why I think Zimmerman will walk, because so far he's essentially proven that he was in a situation where he had justifiable reason to fear for his life, and on top of that there's enough evidence mounting to suggest that while he followed Martin, he probably didn't instigate the fight. Juries don't always follow the letter of the law so we'll have to see how it plays out but I think Zimmerman's won this one.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41245589]People were outraged by those shootings, just less so than the Zimmerman one because the Zimmerman-Martin shooting was initially going to not even be investigated, which is a massive red flag. Even defenders like yourself have to realize that when someone is shot in the street there needs to atleast be an investigation to see what happened. This is part of the reason why it's such a hot item for reporters; it was one of the few times actual journalism happened in the US and it embarrassed the Sanford Police into maybe thinking "Oh hey a black teenager was shot to death, maybe we should look into that". For the record though, I wouldn't at all mind more reporting about the shooting death of that escort. Pretty messed up, that dude just straight killed someone who was driving away. As to your defense, I'm still on the side of neutrality so I'm willing to believe either individual started the confrontation, but I have to wonder why Martins character is being so heavily analyzed and broken down. I was a truant in school and said dumb shit over the internet too. Does that make my being shot to death somehow more justified than if I was a perfect attendance student who was a teenager but didn't say dumb shit? The fighting is the same way. He is a teenager. Teenagers fight. It shouldn't be encouraged, and I'm not defending his behavior, but it's something that happens across the country nearly everywhere. He wasn't even shot because of any of these things but because he was acting "suspicious", a charge I have yet to see reasonably defended. Now my qualms with attacking Martins character doesn't necessarily mean I believe Zimmerman started the altercation, and I certainly don't think Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder considering he called the police to report his victim minutes before the shooting. I just don't think all the things you mentioned make Martin guilty of assaulting Zimmerman to the point where self-defense with a gun was the only way out for Zimmerman. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] as for "omg media bias", Fox News has been in Zimmermans corner since day one. CNN is incompetent and sensationalist but nowhere near as effective as generating a fanatical base as Fox is. Not defending CNN, but it cuts both ways, and a lot of conservative blogs and outlets are looking at this as a potential political victory.[/QUOTE] Oh I forgot that the character of the people involved is completely irrelevant even though everyone attempts to peg Zimmerman as a "racist" in a bid to justify his guilt.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41246123]Oh I forgot that the character of the people involved is completely irrelevant even though everyone attempts to peg Zimmerman as a "racist" in a bid to justify his guilt.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman is not racist and neither Zimmerman or Martin's past is relevant.

[QUOTE=Iago;41246147]Zimmerman is not racist and neither Zimmerman or Martin's past is relevant.[/QUOTE] The motivations and characters of both parties is extremely relevant to this case in determining the likely aggressor. If Zimmerman had a history of unfairly treating black people and instigating violent conflicts and Martin had never been in a fight in his life it would paint a very different picture of the encounter. This is one form of [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Oge7LFaN5xYC&lpg=PA559&ots=h0YcQzK5L5&dq=criminal%20profiling%20in%20court&pg=PA558#v=onepage&q&f=false]criminal profiling[/url] and it is commonly accepted in court.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41246123]Oh I forgot that the character of the people involved is completely irrelevant even though everyone attempts to peg Zimmerman as a "racist" in a bid to justify his guilt.[/QUOTE] Please read my post and pick out the part where I called Zimmerman racist. I'll wait.

Good, zimmerman will properly walk. Since there isn't any evidence it was a intentional murder. Zimmerman has acted in self defense, at least thats what all the evidence and witnesses point to.

t

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41240617][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#Burden_of_proof[/URL] Yes, the prosecution has to prove it was 2nd degree, but the burden is still on Zimmerman's side to prove the homicide was justified in the first place.[/QUOTE] The only burden on Zimmerman is to show evidence of self defense. He can't claim self defense and show the jury nothing to indicate he was, or felt, threatened. He's done that. Witnesses testified that there was a fight. I'm sure we'll also see evidence of his injuries before this trial is over. Meanwhile, on the prosecution side, what have they shown for evidence that second degree murder happened? Nothing so far.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41246422]Please read my post and pick out the part where I called Zimmerman racist. I'll wait.[/QUOTE] He's not trying to say that you yourself did, but you only mentioned that Martin's character was being criticized, not Zimmerman's.

[QUOTE=NeuFeX;41246466]I'm pretty fucked at the moment, but I must know one thing: did Zimmerman shoot Tray more than once?[/QUOTE] Only once, though I'm sure if he used one of these [img]http://www.snubnose.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Airweight_Bodyguard_250.jpg[/img] he probably would have been able to administer five times the justice he originally did.

Why was trayvon in that neighborhood in the first place? I haven't really followed this story much.

[QUOTE=Snapster;41246532]Why was trayvon in that neighborhood in the first place? I haven't really followed this story much.[/QUOTE] He went to buy some snacks and for some reason was hanging around was looking a little shady so Zman called 911 and later confronted him.

[QUOTE=Lamar;41246499]Only once, though I'm sure if he used one of these [IMG]http://www.snubnose.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Airweight_Bodyguard_250.jpg[/IMG] he probably would have been able to administer five times the justice he originally did.[/QUOTE] Even if you believe Zimmerman was completely in the right for the shooting, it's pretty callous to imply that he should have shot him five more times.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]textwall[/QUOTE] You also forgot to mention that Zimmerman was reported to be yelling help by the guy who walked out in the middle of the fight. This implies Zimmerman was trying to end the fight, but Martin wouldn't stop assuming the witness' testimony is valid.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;41246490]He's not trying to say that you yourself did, but you only mentioned that Martin's character was being criticized, not Zimmerman's.[/QUOTE] I was responding to someone who only focused on Martins character. It's not my responsibility to play apologist for the people who think Zimmerman was racially motivated.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;41242888]CNN just out foxed Fox. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BN4fLYUCMAIQ5B2.jpg[/IMG] [B]Except the witness said the dark skinned fellow was doing the punching. That fucking bias should really open peoples eyes, but wont.[/B][/QUOTE] - snip, realized it's the [I][B]original article. -[/B][/I]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41246725]I was responding to someone who only focused on Martins character. It's not my responsibility to play apologist for the people who think Zimmerman was racially motivated.[/QUOTE] I'm just explaining what he meant.

[QUOTE=Iago;41246619]He went to buy some snacks and for some reason was hanging around was looking a little shady so Zman called 911 and later confronted him.[/QUOTE] Yeah, last time I checked, you can't buy snacks on other people's lawns.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41246067] IMO why Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious really doesn't matter and is almost irrelevant to the case. Even if Zimmerman were a blatant racist and accosted Martin on account of being black, he would still be justified in self-defense if he were attacked by Martin. Even though it seems likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin contrary to the 911 dispatcher, that doesn't have any bearing on the fight, since you can't throw a punch simply because someone is following you. So the facts we have relating to just the fight and the two individuals involved are these: [/QUOTE] How do you know zimmerman didn't start the fight and when martin got the upper hand, he just pulled out his gun and shot him? Zimmerman had absolutely no reason to follow him. Also, you're wrong. The person starting a fight cannot claim self defense. Let's forget all these garbage. Zimmerman made a wrong assumption and killed an innocent juvenile. That's it. I don't know how you people have the audacity to claim zimmerman didn't do anything wrong.

[QUOTE=Snapster;41246532]Why was trayvon in that neighborhood in the first place? I haven't really followed this story much.[/QUOTE] Since nobody's provided a real answer yet, it was because Martin was staying at the home of a family friend with his brother. In the middle of the night, he decided to walk to a local convenience store and pick up some stuff for himself and his brother, a can of tea and a bag of skittles. While walking back to the house, Zimmerman mistook him for a burglar.

[QUOTE=Snapster;41246532]Why was trayvon in that neighborhood in the first place? I haven't really followed this story much.[/QUOTE] Here: [QUOTE]On the day Martin was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, a multi-ethnic gated community, where the shooting occurred.[40][41] Martin had visited his father's fiancée at Twin Lakes several times.[/QUOTE]

Sorry catbarf, meant to reply to your post but forgot about it. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]I don't think anyone is holding Martin's character as any kind of slam-dunk evidence, just as an additional factor that ties into who likely threw the first punch.[/QUOTE] I can understand that, and maybe I'm just naive, but Martin's character doesn't necessarily build someone up in my mind who would actually throw the first punch, given the situation he is in. Again, teenagers. They do stupid shit and say stupid shit, but walking down a sidewalk back to your house, on the phone with some snacks or whatever, I dunno, I just can't see him making the first move. Again, I'm not 100% sure Zimmerman did either. I feel like the public doesn't really have enough evidence on who threw the first punch other than Zimmerman's re-enactment, which would obviously make him appear innocent. I feel like, based on the evidence I've seen, either case could be made. The witnesses definitely seem to support Zimmerman's account of being attacked first though. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]IMO why Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious really doesn't matter and is almost irrelevant to the case. Even if Zimmerman were a blatant racist and accosted Martin on account of being black, he would still be justified in self-defense if he were attacked by Martin. Even though it seems likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin contrary to the 911 dispatcher, that doesn't have any bearing on the fight, since you can't throw a punch simply because someone is following you. So the facts we have relating to just the fight and the two individuals involved are these:[/QUOTE] I agree that you can't punch someone for following you, and being overly-suspicious of possible criminals isn't actually a crime until you act on it, and following them isn't criminal. Personally speaking, I bring up the possiblity that he ignored the 911 dispatcher as more of a "That was kind of a dumb move considering what happened" thing, and less as an actual legal precedent for the prosecution. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067] -Martin had a history of getting in fights and saw himself as a 'gangster'. -Martin had a significant physical advantage over Zimmerman. -Zimmerman had a firearm. -Zimmerman was significantly injured during the altercation.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Martin had a history of schoolyard fights, none that actually ended in even misdemeanor charges. And yeah, he saw himself as a tough guy who was invincible, because he is a 19 year old male. You just described thousands of teenagers across the country. I just don't see who either of these two points are particularly relevant. I'm seeing the point you are trying to make, and I can see Martin being the aggressor, but I'm not making the connection between the two points. Maybe I'm just in denial. As far as the significant physical advantage and injuries go, this is probably pedantic, but I feel like "significantly" is a bit much. Martin had a slight physical advantage and Zimmerman had a busted nose and some small cuts on the back of his head. That said, if it's true that Martin was beating Zimmerman on the ground, I could see how Zimmerman may have felt that his life was threatened. If this actually holds up in court (how many witnesses describe this, and how reliable are their individual testimonies?) I feel like the prosecution is sunk with that alone. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]Now, given these facts, I think it is also reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman had his weapon holstered. Why? Well, if he had his weapon drawn, it seems unlikely that Martin would start a fight. And if Zimmerman started the fight with his weapon out, I don't see how he would end up beaten so harshly. Martin might have been many things but I don't think he was stupid enough to try to fight someone with a gun pointed at him.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure he had his weapon out, but to your question of how he could be beaten, maybe he hesitated? Fights happen quickly and he injuries he sustained could have been applied in seconds. As for not being stupid enough to fight someone with a gun pointed at him, don't underestimate the stupidity of teenagers who brag about beating other people up on public websites.. In fact, don't underestimate the stupidity of teens in general. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]So we have Zimmerman, with his weapon holstered, speaking to Martin. So now the question is, which is more plausible- that Zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood watch, with his weapon holstered, picked a fistfight with a guy significantly taller and younger than him, or that Martin, a self-styled gangster who frequently got in fights and according to one witness was going to 'teach him a lesson' started it? It seems to me like if Zimmerman was a giant racist and meant to do harm to an innocent black man, he'd [I]probably[/I] have his gun out considering said black man was the physically the more imposing of the two. I think it seems more plausible that Martin was the aggressor here.[/QUOTE] I don't think Zimmerman was walking down the sidewalk with his pistol up yelling racial epithets. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that perhaps he unholstered his firearm and Martin felt threatened by it. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]Then we come to the injuries. The nature of the injuries to both parties, plus the eyewitness testimony, pretty clearly suggest that Zimmerman was the one on the ground being straddled and beaten. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, which does not seem likely, he was being seriously injured and could have reason to fear for his life.[/QUOTE] I agree with this [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]But the thing that keeps getting overlooked here is that under Florida law, [B]it doesn't matter who started the fight[/B]. See, Florida law has this interesting little quote in the Stand Your Ground law. While normally a person who is the aggressor in a fight cannot claim self-defense, there is an exception that an aggressor can use lethal force to defend themselves when the defender uses force which is What this means is that under Florida law, even if Zimmerman started the fight, if it was Martin who escalated it to a life-or-death situation and Zimmerman had no other recourse, then use of lethal force is justified. Given that all evidence points to Zimmerman being the one on the ground, unable to escape, and with his head being repeatedly and violently slammed into the pavement, then the use of lethal force in this case is justified. So put simply, all this arguing back and forth over why Zimmerman followed Martin and whether he was racist or not and who threw the first punch is all just missing the forest for the trees. Under Florida law, if you're in an altercation and suddenly have reason to fear for your life and can't escape or otherwise defuse the situation, you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself. [/QUOTE] Does this apply if you don't use Stand Your Ground as defense? I know in another thread someone brought up that he was going for just regular self-defense. I don't actually know the intricacies of Florida law. That said, I know Florida has had problems in the past with SYG/self defense laws being misused. [QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]And that's why I think Zimmerman will walk, because so far he's essentially proven that he was in a situation where he had justifiable reason to fear for his life, and on top of that there's enough evidence mounting to suggest that while he followed Martin, he probably didn't instigate the fight. Juries don't always follow the letter of the law so we'll have to see how it plays out but I think Zimmerman's won this one.[/QUOTE] I think Zimmerman's defense won the moment he was charged with second degree murder. I have no idea what the prosecution was thinking when they asked for that. Maybe they thought the wave of public pressure would just wash away the obvious evidence that there is no way Zimmerman was out that night looking to murder Martin. If they had gone for a lesser homicide charge like manslaughter it would have been a tough case to make given the witnesses, but second degree murder? Doubtful. [editline]30th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=aydin690;41247226] Let's forget all these garbage. Zimmerman made a wrong assumption and killed an innocent juvenile. That's it. I don't know how you people have the audacity to claim zimmerman didn't do anything wrong.[/QUOTE] Saying that he "didn't do anything wrong" is very different from saying that he murdered someone. I think we can all agree that if we could go back in time we might give Zimmerman a call and be like "Yo, I'm from the future, just stay in tonight buddy and watch a movie".

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41247287] I think Zimmerman's defense won the moment he was charged with second degree murder. I have no idea what the prosecution was thinking when they asked for that. Maybe they thought the wave of public pressure would just wash away the obvious evidence that there is no way Zimmerman was out that night looking to murder Martin. If they had gone for a lesser homicide charge like manslaughter it would have been a tough case to make given the witnesses, but second degree murder? Doubtful.[/QUOTE] I don't think you know what 2nd degree murder means: [QUOTE][B]a non-premeditated killing[/B], resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state. [/QUOTE] i.e. An assault that kills the other person. killing with the intent to do harm but not the intent to kill. Example - shooting someone in the leg with the intent to wound but not kill, and the victim bleeds to death.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247310]I don't think you know what 2nd degree murder means: i.e. An assault that kills the other person.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges [B] Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property[/B] Excusable homicide committed by accident [B] Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder [/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html[/url] [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41247361] a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. [/QUOTE] I don't know man, shooting somebody in the chest is exactly that^ Also, you can't claim self defense if you started the fight. How do you know zimmerman didn't start it? [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] Oh, and a nosebleed and two tiny wounds aren't exactly GBI. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] You have to prove Great Bodily Harm to order to use self defense.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247383]I don't know man, shooting somebody in the chest is exactly that^ Also, you can't claim self defense if you started the fight. How do you know zimmerman didn't start it? [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] Oh, and a nosebleed and two tiny wounds aren't exactly GBI. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] You have to prove Grave Bodily Harm to order to use self defense.[/QUOTE] How do you know Martin didn't start it? Because witness testimony and Zimmerman's account both say Martin did, and "well you don't know Zimmerman didn't start it" is not going to hold up in court. Especially when witness testimony disagrees.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247383]I don't know man, shooting somebody in the chest is exactly that^ Also, you can't claim self defense if you started the fight. How do you know zimmerman didn't start it?[/QUOTE] I don't. In fact, I argued the possibility that Zimmerman started the fight above.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41247419]How do you know Martin didn't start it? Because witness testimony and Zimmerman's account both say Martin did, and "well you don't know Zimmerman didn't start it" is not going to hold up in court. Especially when witness testimony disagrees.[/QUOTE] You're delusional dude. There's no witness for the beginning of the confrontation. Nobody knows who started it.