George Zimmerman Is In Legal Trouble Again

Did TM assault GZ?

My probelm with GZ is the fact that he left his vehicle and followed TM. He confronted TM at the crossing of the T in the complex. Based on that, TM had every right to defend hmself from a person who was follwoing him.

 

No , he didn't. This is why Zimmerman is free. You cant assault someone because they are checking up on a figure as a neighborhood watch in their own neighborhood.

 

It does deserve an asswe since you are basing your viewpoint of justice on political idealogy.

 

Under Florida law, you can defend yourself if you believe that you have a reasonaable fearo fo bodily harm upon you. And if someone is following you, that is a reasonable assumption under the law.

 

While most of the statements you made are factual, they too leave out some info or are wrong. In the case of statement #1, Zimmerman clearly admits he is following Martin. http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

Statement #2 is correct, but in statement #5 you jump to the conclusion that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin. It's entirely possible, and given how it played out with Zimmerman on his back being beaten and then drawing his pistol and firing, IMO likely that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.

While we've seen a lot of conjecture about Zimmerman's racism, those that do so ignore Martin's own racism as shown in his phone call to Rachel Jeantel. Is it really surprising that a person with such racist attitudes toward whites would attack that person if they thought they were being followed by one?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial/

 

Technically, GZ lost his right to self defense since he never identified himslef as a neighbohood watch member and the fact hat he left his vehicle, followed TM, and confronted him even though he made the statement that he was afraid of TM prior to the incident, per his official statement to the police.

 

NO one on the planet would view that as " reasonable" , hence why no one with any legal authority did. You cant just turn around and attack people because you " think" they are following you. Especially when you have multiple avenues of action you can take to get away, or call police, or go home, etc... and do not pursue these.

 

you don't ever lose your right for self-defense....

 

No, he didnt. Hence the not guilty verdict.

 

he was actively getting beat.... whether or not you thought he should have beeen in that position is a moot point as when he's actively getting beat, he has the right to defend himself.

 

Well not exactly.When one enters an Abbey or Cloister,they certainly
have little to no right of self-anything.

 

Agreed. Also, despite all the accusations here, following someone isn't illegal. I've seen some try to equate it to stalking, but that's not it either. Any person in that complex, including Trayvon Martin, had a right to follow anyone who was looking suspicious, including George Zimmerman. Despite his racism shown in the phone call, Martin's comments about being disturbed at being watched is normal. He should have called 911 right then and there.

Martin obviously lost Zimmerman, who assumed Martin was headed for an exit and not home, and went running off in the wrong direction. Walking back from that error is where Zimmerman met Martin. The position on the sidewalk indicates something drew Zimmerman to that point. My guess is Martin yelling something at him. They confronted, a brawl broke out and Zimmerman ended up on his back with his head being pounded into the pavement. While Zimmerman was an inept fighter, I doubt he initiated the attack since he probably would have used his gun and, if he did, it's unlikely he'd have ended up on his back so quickly. A more likely scenario is he was surprised by an attack.

 

Not for a nano-second and it was confirmed in court. He had no obligation to identify himself and his leaving the vehicle was perfectly reasonable and in now way negated his right to self defense in the second encounter, you lost these arguments in court why do you keep trying to repeat them?

- - - Updated - - -

Cite the law in it's entirety and show us where it states this.

 

Not for the reasons she mentioned, but yes, a person who attacks another loses their right to self defense. In this case, Trayvon Martin.

 

You keep acting like TM supporters dispute, don't accept, or don't understand the verdict or the legal process. We do.

What I don't understand or accept is the view that GZ did nothing wrong that night. And how those wrong things, if they wouldn't have happened, would NOT have contributed to the fatal shooting of a minor

 

There was nothing legally wrong about his leaving his vehicle nor did it have any consequences on his right to self defense.

Proven otherwise in court, TM went back to the T and confronted Zimmerman.

There was not a shred of evidence produced that Martin ever had a imminent fear of serious bodily harm or death, in fact the opposite. The first encounter ended with neither knowing where the other was and Martin back at the apartment where he could have sought safety had he such a fear.

 

Isn't it just convenient how the cell phone records of Trayvon's cell phone
service could not be located or made available.That would have helped
dramatically as far as time line.
Just one aspect on how the fix was in Against George Zimmerman.
Just like the way NBC doctored the 911 call to make it appear George
was a closet racist.They took totally out of context the proper order of what
911 operator asks George in reference to race,size etc.

 

There is no proof Zimmerman attacked TM....


if a girl gets drunk and raped..... does she lose her right to not get raped because she could have gone home instead of walking down that road she shouldn't have been on?

 

Most people whom are being honest view assaulting and bashing someone much worse than walking around your neighborhood checking on a suspicious person... Thugvon supporters seem to think that checking on the welfare of your neighborhood leads to a beat down.

 

Speak for yourself because there are plenty on this board the don't accept and don't understand and criticize the process because it didn't delivery the verdict they wanted.

What did he do wrong that night. He seemed like a concerned citizen to me.

 

The bullet hole in Martin's chest is proof.

What we are talking about is who attacked whom first. That person lost their right to self-defense. IMO, Martin attacked Zimmerman first as shown by the fact Zimmerman was on his back and had to draw his gun. If Zimmerman attacked first, I think he is such a wuss he'd have had his gun drawn or not attacked at all.

 

GZ in fact DID Nothing wrong.That is manifestly obvious.
That is why the Race hustlers scrambled so to eliminate most of what
Trayvon actually did that fateful night.With the Little Red Riding Hood Fairy
Tale about " Just walking Home ".
GZ called 911. GZ left his vehicle { perfectly sane and reasonable,breaking NO law }
no matter what former Snitch and fat a$$ Sharpton tried to rally about.
GZ was volunteering his services as Community Watch captain.
Trayvon was obviously out looking for trouble.Witness Dee Dee is the proof.
Again ... Little Trayvon was Not Little and NOT " just walking home ".
The MSM and MSNBC with Sharpton at the helm had to quickly make
Zimmerman out to be the Boogeyman.Just like Birthers were Boogeyman'd.
Exact same tactic.Chicago style.

 

Following is not chasing

 

No you are revising your memories of what they did

 

If not for George Zimmerman prowling around the neighborhood with a gun, Trayvon Martin would have gone home and he would still be alive today.

George is directly responsible for the death of an innocent, unarmed teen ager because of the crap in George's head.