"Zimmerman Confronted Martin"

General Buck Turgidson said:
According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause that supports the Second Degree Murder charge:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docume...merman-affidavit-of-probable-cause.php?page=1


Hey SF, maybe you should send the dictionary definition of "confront" to the homicide investigators.
Click to expand...



Seems to me they go from a VERY detailed scenario to "Zimmerman confronted Martin".......no detail about how this occurred at all, or the eye witness

testimony about Martin on top of him, beating his head into the pavement, or his injuries.....very convenient....very telling.....and very biased
 
bravo said:
Seems to me they go from a VERY detailed scenario to "Zimmerman confronted Martin".......no detail about how this occurred at all, or the eye witness

testimony about Martin on top of him, beating his head into the pavement, or his injuries.....very convenient....very telling.....and very biased
Click to expand...


If they concluded the Zimmerman confronted Martin, which they did, then the detail about Martin defending himself is irrelevant to establishing probable cause to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder. It's a charging statement, not a narrative of events.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause that supports the Second Degree Murder charge:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docume...merman-affidavit-of-probable-cause.php?page=1


Hey SF, maybe you should send the dictionary definition of "confront" to the homicide investigators.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they have the evidence that shows he did.

As I stated yesterday, I think the location of the shooting relative to the complex and Zimmerman's car would be very telling. A point that has not been addressed anywhere in the media.

Also... their entire case has to be based on Zimmerman being the one that started the confrontation. If not, they don't have a case. If Martin started it, then Zimmerman did have a right to defend himself.
 
Superfreak said:
Or maybe they have the evidence that shows he did.

As I stated yesterday, I think the location of the shooting relative to the complex and Zimmerman's car would be very telling. A point that has not been addressed anywhere in the media.

Also... their entire case has to be based on Zimmerman being the one that started the confrontation. If not, they don't have a case. If Martin started it, then Zimmerman did have a right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Uh, Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around. If he hadn't followed him, as he had been instructed by the 911 dispatcher, there would have been no need to defend himself, if that's even what he did.
 
poet said:
Uh, Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around. If he hadn't followed him, as he had been instructed by the 911 dispatcher, there would have been no need to defend himself, if that's even what he did.
Click to expand...

and the other side of the coin is where Zimmerman stated he was returning to his car after the dispatcher told him not to continue following Martin when Martin asked him if he 'had a problem'... both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend stated that was the initiation of the verbal confrontation.
 
poet said:
Uh, Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around. If he hadn't followed him, as he had been instructed by the 911 dispatcher, there would have been no need to defend himself, if that's even what he did.
Click to expand...
911 dispatchers cannot give 'lawful' orders. furthermore, it can be suicidal to follow the instructions of a 911 dispatcher, so I recommend people using their own common sense instead of listening to someone who is not there to make a sound decision.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/...erator-who-sent-murder-victim-back-to-denver/

so you idiot liberals and racists need to stop talking shit about what you THINK you know and go back to school.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it is necessary to overcome the current SYG law, that is why it's in the affidavit.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't necessary to overcome the SYG law. In fact, I don't think it does overcome the SYG law. There is nothing in the SYG law that says it is inapplicable to one who initiates a confrontation with another. Presumably it would not apply to one who initiates a physical altercation with another, but the affidavit is vague (intentionally, I might add - the use of passive voice immediately after the active voice is glaringly obvious) on that particular point.
 
Superfreak said:
Or maybe they have the evidence that shows he did.

As I stated yesterday, I think the location of the shooting relative to the complex and Zimmerman's car would be very telling. A point that has not been addressed anywhere in the media.

Also... their entire case has to be based on Zimmerman being the one that started the confrontation. If not, they don't have a case. If Martin started it, then Zimmerman did have a right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

It was stupid to say it yesterday, it is still just as stupid today.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
No, it isn't necessary to overcome the SYG law. In fact, I don't think it does overcome the SYG law. There is nothing in the SYG law that says it is inapplicable to one who initiates a confrontation with another. Presumably it would not apply to one who initiates a physical altercation with another, but the affidavit is vague (intentionally, I might add - the use of passive voice immediately after the active voice is glaringly obvious) on that particular point.
Click to expand...

I hate being right all the time. From the florida syg law that you either missed or/and that zappa is missing......

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.
 
poet said:
Uh, Zimmerman was following Martin, not the other way around. If he hadn't followed him, as he had been instructed by the 911 dispatcher, there would have been no need to defend himself, if that's even what he did.
Click to expand...

The diagrams I have seen show Zimmermans car to be quite a distance from the shooting site, but the details will come out in the trial.
 
Superfreak said:
and the other side of the coin is where Zimmerman stated he was returning to his car after the dispatcher told him not to continue following Martin when Martin asked him if he 'had a problem'... both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend stated that was the initiation of the verbal confrontation.
Click to expand...

How long after? Why are you wasting valuable cyberspace with this drivel?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I hate being right all the time. From the florida syg law that you either missed or/and that zappa is missing......

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.
Click to expand...

Not to worry, it is just an illusion in your mind that you are right any of the time.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I hate being right all the time. From the florida syg law that you either missed or/and that zappa is missing......

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.
Click to expand...


You are operating under the assumption that "confronting" a person is sufficient "provocation" to justify the use of force against the confrontor. I don't think that is necessarily true. You also discount the exceptions to the rule, particularly the exception in section (a).

If the intent was to get around the STG law, the affidavit would have been much more clear on the confrontation and would not have used the passive voice to describe the physical altercation.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause that supports the Second Degree Murder charge:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docume...merman-affidavit-of-probable-cause.php?page=1


Hey SF, maybe you should send the dictionary definition of "confront" to the homicide investigators.
Click to expand...

interestly that paragraph doesn't mention witnesses...unlike the other paragraphs...also, this guy is considered to be an expert:

Dershowitz: The charging instrument filed against George Zimmerman is “unethical” and will never make it past a judge
 
Yurt said:
interestly that paragraph doesn't mention witnesses...unlike the other paragraphs...also, this guy is considered to be an expert:

Dershowitz: The charging instrument filed against George Zimmerman is “unethical” and will never make it past a judge
Click to expand...

Yeah, and he has seen all the evidence?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You are operating under the assumption that "confronting" a person is sufficient "provocation" to justify the use of force against the confrontor. I don't think that is necessarily true. You also discount the exceptions to the rule, particularly the exception in section (a).

If the intent was to get around the STG law, the affidavit would have been much more clear on the confrontation and would not have used the passive voice to describe the physical altercation.
Click to expand...
not necessarily. IMO, the prosecutor isn't even looking at subsection (a) because none of if applies. By stating in the affidavit that 'zimmerman confronted martin', it allows her to substantiate the charge and rebut his self defense claim,.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top