George Zimmerman

Nothing in this case is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Martin may have assaulted Zimmerman, leading Zimmerman to lawfully defend himself with lethal force under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statue.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In the absence of such proof, Zimmerman remains totally innocent in the eyes of the law.

1. The people saying it was “murder” have a reputation of “crying wolf” (e.g. the Duke Lacrosse team “rape” case, which ended with the prosecutor being disbarred for falsifying evidence). Note that the broadcast network making the charges was caught editing the “911” tape which as broadcast made it appear that Zimmerman was foaming through the mouth racist, but in the original version before editing makes him appear to be someone under attack who discussed race only when the police asked for a description.

2. The overwhelming tendenacy of the leading Democrats to regard urban crime as a non-issue, while they tend to live in comfortable suburbs or buidlings with private security. The liberal media are indifferent to urban crime – which has been a problem for many people who follow YWN.

3. Under American law, Zimmerman is supposed to be assume to be innocent, meaning under the poltically incorrect version of law in the American constitution, the prosecutor needs to prove he wasn’t attacked (assume he pleads self-defense). Given the fact that it was Zimmerman who contacted the police (something very few criminals do — usually its the victim who calls 911), there appears to be some substance to Zimmerman’s defense.

In America you are innocent until proven guilty. All and i mean all of the facts, eye witness statement and evidence leads to Zimmerman telling the truth about the shooting being self defense.

The media has unfairly portrayed Martin as a saint showing childhood pictures only and botching the 911 tapes, and surveillance video showing zimmermans cuts bruises and bloodied head. Zimmermans neighbors came out saying he had bandages on his eye and nose for days after the incident which the media did not play up. NBC, while discrediting their own organization, lied and edited the 911 tapes trying to portray him as a huge racist.

Zimmerman tutored black kids on weekends, is a minority himself, and every black celebrity including the biggest Libs ever al sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out condemning Zimmerman in the worst way. There is a bounty on zimmermans head which Obama has not said boo about. So please. I am not playing the Dan lekuf Zechus card because the Libs are defending Martin, I am because I am an educated person who looks at facts but until after the trial no one can really give an answer.

I am of the belief that initially the knee-jerk reaction might have been that Zimmerman was Jewish, and therefore the media jumped all over him. Now, they realize they were mistaken, but the hype was too great to knock the story down from its very public height.

If Zimmerman shot this young man with no good reason to do so, he is guilty. Plain and simple. If however, he saw someone who looked suspicious and then responded to his “What are you doing here?” type comments (if any) with an abrasive attitude and clear intention to do harm, then Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself. Only the two of them know what actually happened, and one of the two is dead.

Zimmerman WAS injured unquestionably, with wounds to the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his shirt, which proves he was on the ground, whereas Trayvon Martin had no other mark on him except obviously for the lethal shot (which would tend to indicate that he probably had the upper hand in their struggle). I doubt that Trayvon Martin was one of the Lamed-Vov Tzaddikim, but it still is unfortunate for his family who loved him, that he ended up dead. This whole thing reminds me a bit of the Bernhard Goetz story.

I am just thankful that no one rioted against Jews, mistakenly thinking it was a Jew who did this.

What do you think of the Stand Your Ground law?

I am in favor of “stand your ground”. I think those that attack it do not understand the laws.

Under the common law, if you are attacked and somebody is trying to kill you, you are not allowed to fight back with “deadly force” unless you are unable to run away. This puts victims in a bad situation, since they must try to run away, which may put them in an even more vulnerable situation. Moreover, if they do fight back, they might be prosecuted on the theory that they could have run away.

The stand your ground law changes that, and says that you are not required to run away. Rather, you are allowed to fight back.

But, the stand your ground law only applies in very limited scenarios. If somebody is going to rob you, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat you up, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat up your kids, you are not allowed to kill them.

Moreover, it does not go by what YOU think is going to happen, but by what a reasonable bystander would think. So, if you think he is going to kill you, but the jury thinks that was unreasonable, then you are guilty.

I’m in favor of that law.

Mayor Bloomberg is a rich idiot, and out of touch with the world. Let’s imagine for a moment that the facts of this case are the most positive for Zimmerman. (I’m making this up). That is let’s imagine that he stopped following when the police told him to, and was going back to his car, when Martin snuck behind him, punched him to the ground, straddled him and bashed his head into the ground intending to kill him. And that’s when he shot him. So if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, he’d have been murdered. In that scenario, are you happy he had a gun? I am.

He was found with a plastic bag with ‘residue’ that is not quite posession. Actually it is because of this that he is dead, that he was suspended. Not that he was of age, but high school kids do drink. Would he have been suspended with an empty bottle of beer actually an emply water bottle which might have contained beer. Still he has not issues with the law.

I can’t see Zimmerman fearing for his life. While some high school kids are very strong and big, he was not as big as Zimmerman at all. Zimmerman should have talked his way out of it, as I have done many times when I lived in NY. But he had the gun so he was a big man.

It is highly likely that Martin asked why he was being followed and words were exchanged. But in the final analysis, he was not a person in trouble with the law before.

“He was suspended from school for marijuana possession. A deleted Twitter account was found through web archives which had pictures of him dressed as a gang member, making gang signs, and writing very violent messages”

Florida’s Stand Your Groind statue allows the use of deadly force in response to great bodily harm, even if he does not fear his life is at risk.

If the country would crack down on crime more, then the thugs would be a bit less willing to do violent crime, v’hameivin yavin the resulting therefores. Meaning, specifically, someone who is found guilty of killing with intent, first degree, whose conviction is upheld by a court of appeals shoul be put to death. When you crack down hard, it sends a message and produces results – people won’t kill if they know that if they’re caught and provan guilty they will be put to death. This is a shita of a gadol of the previous generation – i heard it from one of his closest talmidim.

The pictures we see on media seem to make Martin as lanky and a runt looking and the other one as a big guy.

Yes, the news outlets have come under attack from conservatives for showing an old picture of martin when he was 13, and a really bad picture of zimmerman. You can google around, you’ll find recent pictures of martin looking like a thug, and of zimmerman looking like an overweight department store clerk. Pictures are interesting-I can show you pictures of me that look pretty thugish too.

So the evidence has to show this great bodily harms existing or not? is that what the case will come down to?

Evidence that he could have reasonably believed he was being threatened with great bodily harm. But I think it may really be the opposite, the prosecution will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably think he was being threatened with great bodily harm. (I don’t know who bears the burden of proof on the defenses to murder. And how it shifts.)

And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.

Knowing as he did? How do you know what he knew?

According to the law, I think he was only allowed to use “deadly force” if it was necessary to prevent the “great bodily harm” he thought he was being threatened with. If the jury believes martin was indeed on top of him beating his head, the jury could easily find that the force he used was necessary.

“And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.”

How easy exactly do you think it is for someone who is being attacked and beaten up b’shaas maaseh to keep cool and think logically when he also is scared that he may soon experience a serious, permanant, and possibly life-threatning injury that he will be able to calmly pull out his gun, uncontested, steady aim and shoot at a non-vital part, and aiming isn’t so pashut either. If you’re at the point where you’re shooting the guy, you just aim center mass and pull the trigger, not go through a whole cheshban of what’s the politically correct way to do it. Agav, people who hold political correctness in such high esteem are mekalkel society in that they cause people to be unnecissarily hurt, taken advantage of, and killed, all bec someone is too afraid of the reshaim of the liberal left, yemach shemom, bringing charges, etc. The world would be better off if they all dropped dead. . .

I’m with Popa on this one.

mochoh: I’m not convinced of that. I think there is something qualitatively worse about a racial crime.

“mochoh: I’m not convinced of that. I think there is something qualitatively worse about a racial crime.”

Except that not every time a white guy attacks a black guy is it racially motivated. If anything, the constant indiscriminate labeling of every instance of white vs minority as racially motivated makes sure that the racist overtones will never fade precisely because for it to fade would require that whites vs whites and whites vs blacks be the same, this transformation however is prevented by the stupid unyielding assumption that all instances are race related. This further promotes that psychologically white perpetrators will more likely view it as a racist crime bec society loudly proclaims it to be so, and society has a profound subconcsious impact on all who are exposed to it. Furthermore, much of the racist steriotyping of minorities as thugs etc is spawned by the justified perception and reputation as being thugs – every day another person or perople are killed in gang violence, etc, things like the incidents referenced by granderson in his article – if you crack down and curtail the minority perpetrated crime, then their reputation will be hopefully a little less thuggish.

All of Zimmerman’s actions in following Martin prior to the confrontation, were entirely lawful.

By the time they learned that he was actually hispanic, it was too late to back down”

Yeah, I said that several paragraphs ago. “I am of the belief that initially the knee-jerk reaction might have been that Zimmerman was Jewish, and therefore the media jumped all over him. Now, they realize they were mistaken, but the hype was too great to knock the story down from its very public height.” It is sad that my inital reaction was, “Oy, another Jew is in the papers!” and then, “Oh B”H, it was a Hispanic Goy.”

He was not looking for a fight. And carrying a gun is legal in Florida. He followed and watched Martin, he did not confront him. All of which is 100% legal. Police did not order Zimmerman to do, or not do, anything. A 911 operator (not police) *suggested* it “wasn’t necessary” to follow him. It was not an order. And in fact a 911 telephone operator cannot issue orders.

And Martin confronted Zimmerman.

So if Zimmerman was justified in attacking Martin because he felt threatened, wouldn’t Martin be justified in attacking Zimmerman because HE felt threatned? Woudln’t you feel threatned if a strange man was following you?

I thought we had well established that we don’t know what happened, so no opinion can possibly be correct.

In any event, the answer to your question is that luckily, the law has an objective standard, so that it needs to be that a reasonable observer would think you were justified in feeling threatened.

Feeling threatened is NOT a justification to attack someone.

Morally, or legally?

Legally, feeling threatened is a justification to attack someone in every state in the country. Assuming you feel sufficiently threatened under the law in that state, and there are no other ways for you to defend yourself in some states.

You can legally attack someone, in any state, just because you feel threatened by her, even if she didn’t do anything to you?

Well, as I noted above, it is an objective standard that a reasonable person would have to feel threatened.

Why does that surprise you?

Imagine a guy comes to you with a gun and aims it at you, and says he will kill you. But has done nothing to you. Shouldn’t you be allowed to shoot him first?

popa: The question was about “feel threatened”, not actually threatened. Your example is of an actual threat.

Not really?! The example you gave fits the legal definition of assault, even if it was a joke.

PBA -the hypocrisy of some who call themselves conservatives is very obvious. They say Martin had the right to attack George due to self -defense of the stalking, but George had No right to defend himself while being pummeled!

Where have this country gone so wrong?

What is up is down & what is down is up!

I would have used colors to say the same thing, but I doubt in this PC world of ours the post would go through.

so health basically what your saying is your allowed to threaten someone and then when they attack you due to self defense of stalking, your allowed to kill the person lol