We USA CARRY supporters should be paying special attention to the Zimmerman trial..
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: We USA CARRY supporters should be paying special attention to the Zimmerman trial..

  1. We USA CARRY supporters should be paying special attention to the Zimmerman trial..

    Food for thought...yes the last operator GZ talked to stated they didnt need him to do that (follow him). But the first 2 operators' testimony on the stand, stated they instructed him to "keep an eye on him" and "let them know if the suspicious person did anything different". So by the time he was ask to not do that it was already too late, he was keeping an eye on him. TM was the agressor, if he was truly worried he was being followed by this creepy ass cracker, he could have A) went home instead of attacking GZ, or B) he had a phone, he could have also dialed 911 and report that he was being followed. NOT C) confront him, punch him in the face, get him on the ground and continue to punch him, hitting his head into cement..
    Trust me I'm not attempting to be confrontational, just sharing facts as I've seen while watching this trial..we as carry usa supporters, need to pay very close attention to this case, as it could affect all of us in the future, and affect life or death decision making in a split second, whether we should choose to pull the trigger at an imminent threat or take a chance of spending the rest of our lives in prison..

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackbird48060 View Post
    We USA CARRY supporters should be paying special attention to the Zimmerman trial..


    Oh, we have been. Below is a link to a list of threads that we've given our attention to over the last year+ since the incident happened, and these are just the ones that have "Zimmerman" in the thread title. There are several others that include attention paid to the case that either went off-topic (they were about another case to begin with, but morphed into a Zimmerman/Martin thread) or just had Martin's or Sharpton's or a prosecutor's or defense attorney's name in the title. Not counting this thread, there are 41 others, a few currently active, that have "Zimmerman" in the title.

    Search criteria: "Zimmerman"

    42 Results.

    Happy reading!

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #3
    This whole thing went south when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, and he refused or ignored those instructions.

    Non-LEO's carry firearms for personal protection, not to be take on the role of a LEO, not to stalk a possible bg to see if 'he might do something illegal'. Zimmerman called the cops, job done.

    Did Trevon attack Zimmerman, I don't know. Had Zimmerman followed the 911 dispatchers instructions to stop following, none of this would have happened and those of us that carry solely for defense would not have the black-eye Zimmerman and his "watch captain" mentality has tainted every person that carries with.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    This whole thing went south when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, and he refused or ignored those instructions.

    Non-LEO's carry firearms for personal protection, not to be take on the role of a LEO, not to stalk a possible bg to see if 'he might do something illegal'. Zimmerman called the cops, job done.

    Did Trevon attack Zimmerman, I don't know. Had Zimmerman followed the 911 dispatchers instructions to stop following, none of this would have happened and those of us that carry solely for defense would not have the black-eye Zimmerman and his "watch captain" mentality has tainted every person that carries with.
    While I generally agree with your analysis, as is proven on a daily basis right here on this forum, stupidity is not illegal. Ill-advised, yes, illegal, no. It doesn't really matter who attacked whom at this point either. The eye-and-ear-witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help and Martin raining down blows in "MMA, ground-and-pound" style. That equals GZ attempting to withdraw from the fight whether he started it or not, and FL Code Section 776.041 says that even the initial aggressor is allowed to defend himself if he makes it known he wants to withdraw and the initial victim continues the fight. This is classic self-defense. Charges should've never been brought. It's a sham, which is the result of stupidity on the parts of both Zimmerman and Martin. If stupidity were illegal, Zimmerman should fry. Since it ain't though, it amounts to Martin bringing a thug-attitude to a gunfight. Oops. Too bad, so sad. Next.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #5
    Of course each states laws differ as to when deadly force is justified.

    It was emphasized several times in the class I took, that if I am the aggressor in an encounter with someone, the fact I am the original aggressor that negates my justification to use deadly force, and I could be in a world of hurt in the eyes of the law. CC or OC for self-defense of self and others in the presence of a threat, and nothing else.

    Yea, we don't have enough jails to make stupidity illegal, but stupidity is not justification for their actions either.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    This whole thing went south when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow, and he refused or ignored those instructions.

    Non-LEO's carry firearms for personal protection, not to be take on the role of a LEO, not to stalk a possible bg to see if 'he might do something illegal'. Zimmerman called the cops, job done.

    Did Trevon attack Zimmerman, I don't know. Had Zimmerman followed the 911 dispatchers instructions to stop following, none of this would have happened and those of us that carry solely for defense would not have the black-eye Zimmerman and his "watch captain" mentality has tainted every person that carries with.
    I don't ever remember hearing any evidence Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers request...in fact the 911 call tells me he did follow that request...

    What information do you have that no one else does?
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    There is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the operator suggested it wasn't needed. It's pretty clear from the injuries that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story and Martin had no injuries other than to his fists and the bullet wound. Had Martin not attacked Zimmerman he would be alive today.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Your classes were deficient. If someone is the initial aggressor and he backs off and ends his attack, he then has the right to self defense if he is attacked. But this was a case where Martin was the aggressor, he confronted Zimmerman, he attacked Zimmerman. This is supported by the injuries that each was shown to have.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Your classes were deficient. If someone is the initial aggressor and he backs off and ends his attack, he then has the right to self defense if he is attacked. But this was a case where Martin was the aggressor, he confronted Zimmerman, he attacked Zimmerman. This is supported by the injuries that each was shown to have.
    That true, and the was covered, and it all depends on the laws of the state your are in, and Z did not tell Trevon he was backing off, I'm out dude. There was no "peace bro" declaration.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    That true, and the was covered, and it all depends on the laws of the state your are in, and Z did not tell Trevon he was backing off, I'm out dude. There was no "peace bro" declaration.
    776.041
    Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is 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; or

    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


    For one thing, across at least two threads now, you continuously insinuate that it is a known "fact" that Zimmerman actively followed Martin after being told he didn't need to, and that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. There is zero evidence to support either of those conclusions.


    Secondly, for the sake of (a useless, unrelated to anything having to do with Zimmerman) argument, I posted the FL code section that covers conversion from initial aggressor to secondary victim for you above. Where in that code sub-section does it specify specific verbiage that must be uttered for the initial aggressor to be denied by law the right of self defense? If screaming for help for more than 45 seconds while not throwing any blows in retaliation for the beating he was taking isn't a "clear indication to the assailant" that he does not wish to fight, then no words would be any more clear. That's one of the worst red herring arguments I've heard in all this.

    Besides that, the "clear indication" is not a requirement, it's an option. He does not need to make anything clear in any way if he has formed the requisite reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death from the attack the instant before he pulled the trigger.

    For some reason you want Zimmerman to be guilty, even if the law doesn't support such a verdict. It's rather baffling.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast