Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

"Hannity interview" <> court of law

Zimmerman's statement to the police describing his encounter with Martin also paints a pretty convincing picture that Martin legally and justifiably defended himself according to Florida law.

What facts in evidence do you have that it was instead a case of criminal assault?

 

[WildCat]

Zimmerman's statement to the police describing his encounter with Martin also paints a pretty convincing picture that Martin legally and justifiably defended himself according to Florida law.

I don't think you understand Florida law, or any law for that matter. You really should educate yourself before you end up in prison for "defending yourself".

 

[marplots]

Finally. Now George can get back to what he does best - being George.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Zimmerman's statement to the police describing his encounter with Martin also paints a pretty convincing picture that Martin legally and justifiably defended himself according to Florida law.

Apparently the jury disagreed.

 

[Wolrab]

Can modest George now file because his civil rights were violated?

 

[theprestige]

Apparently the jury disagreed.

The jury, and the Justice Department.

 

[theprestige]

Can modest George now file because his civil rights were violated?

I for one fervently hope that George Zimmerman can now STFU and stay out of the news, even if it means becoming a better person in the process.

 

[johnny karate]

Apparently the jury disagreed.

I don't recall the jury rendering a verdict on whether or not Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Do you have a link?

Or - just for ****s and giggles - you could actually substantiate your claim with something other than a glib one-liner. A fact or two would be a refreshing change of pace. Got any?

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think you understand Florida law, or any law for that matter. You really should educate yourself before you end up in prison for "defending yourself".

The statute in question as been posted numerous times in this thread, along with Zimmerman's own description to the police of his initial encounter with Martin. You should give them a read.

And then break it down for me, WildCat.

Demonstrate exactly how as a matter of law Martin assaulted Zimmerman. And please don't forget to cite your evidence.

Dazzle me with you intellect and legal acumen.

 

[WildCat]

The statute in question as been posted numerous times in this thread, along with Zimmerman's own description to the police of his initial encounter with Martin. You should give them a read.

And then break it down for me, WildCat.

Demonstrate exactly how as a matter of law Martin assaulted Zimmerman. And please don't forget to cite your evidence.

Dazzle me with you intellect and legal acumen.

Whoa there sparky, you've already admitted that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, remember?

"Zimmerman's statement to the police describing his encounter with Martin also paints a pretty convincing picture that Martin legally and justifiably defended himself according to Florida law."

Now your claim is that it was a lawful assault per Florida law, so let's get to that point. What did Zimmerman do that allowed Martin to assault him under Florida law, that you say he mentioned in his police interview?

 

[Cavemonster]

Whoa there sparky, you've already admitted that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, remember?

Whoa there sparky yourself.

Both the legal definition of assault and the common language dictionary definition would not apply to force used legally in self defense.

So, to be charitable, I'm going to assume you mean to use a different word there.

 

[WildCat]

Whoa there sparky yourself.

Both the legal definition of assault and the common language dictionary definition would not apply to force used legally in self defense.

So, to be charitable, I'm going to assume you mean to use a different word there.

If you want to be pedantic we'll say "punched in the face".

 

[johnny karate]

Whoa there sparky, you've already admitted that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, remember?

"Zimmerman's statement to the police describing his encounter with Martin also paints a pretty convincing picture that Martin legally and justifiably defended himself according to Florida law."

You claim I admitted Martin assaulted Zimmerman...

...and then quoted me doing nothing of the kind.

Weird.

Now your claim is that it was a lawful assault per Florida law, so let's get to that point. What did Zimmerman do that allowed Martin to assault him under Florida law, that you say he mentioned in his police interview?

I've never said it was "assault". Assault is a crime. Crimes require evidence to be proven.

Your claim. Your burden to prove that claim.

But here, let me post the Florida statute on self-defense for like the fourth time:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

And of course we know from Zimmerman's call to the police and the statement he gave afterwards that:

1) He was following Martin.

2) He did not identify himself nor communicate his intentions.

3) He reached into his pocket.

So a teenage boy walking home alone at night is followed by a stranger who makes a move for his pocket.

Explain how it was not reasonable for Martin to believe Zimmerman intended imminent unlawful force against which Martin had the legal right to defend himself.

Then prove what actually took place was criminal assault.

 

[johnny karate]

If you want to be pedantic we'll say "punched in the face".

Yeah, we should probably be pedantic, because as I'm sure you know, punching someone in the face isn't automatically criminal assault.

So when you go around conflating the two and then attribute your conflation to something someone else says, it make you look dishonest.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, you are confused.

:But here, let me post the Florida statute on self-defense for like the fourth time:


And of course we know from Zimmerman's call to the police and the statement he gave afterwards that:

1) He was following Martin.

2) He did not identify himself nor communicate his intentions.

3) He reached into his pocket.

So a teenage boy walking home alone at night is followed by a stranger who makes a move for his pocket.

Explain how it was not reasonable for Martin to believe Zimmerman intended imminent unlawful force against which Martin had the legal right to defend himself.

Then prove what actually took place was criminal assault.

Because following someone is not evidence of an imminent unlawful act to a reasonable person. And furthermore we know that Martin wasn't concerned because he decided to talk to Rachel Jeantel instead of calling the police, nor did he try to leave even though he was no longer in Zimmerman's sight, in fact he came back to where Zimmerman was near the "T". Not the actions of someone who was in fear of imminent unlawful force.

 

[johnny karate]

Because following someone is not evidence of an imminent unlawful act to a reasonable person.

There were actually other things on my list. Like the part where Zimmerman reached into his pocket, which in pretty much every version he told of his story, is what directly preceded the punch.

Also, since when does someone need "evidence" to have a reasonable belief that another person is about to use unlawful force against them?

Did every cop you've defended for shooting and killing someone have evidence the person they just killed intended an imminent unlawful act? Or was it just a reasonable belief?

1) He was being followed by a stranger at night.

2) The stranger did not identify himself nor announce his intentions.

3) The stranger made a quick motion for his pocket.

So again, explain how it is not reasonable for a person in that circumstance to believe the stranger intends imminent unlawful force.

And furthermore we know that Martin wasn't concerned because he decided to talk to Rachel Jeantel instead of calling the police, nor did he try to leave even though he was no longer in Zimmerman's sight, in fact he came back to where Zimmerman was near the "T". Not the actions of someone who was in fear of imminent unlawful force.

Read the statute again.

First of all, Martin had no duty to retreat. He had the legal right to be where he was, and even confront the person following him.

Secondly, the word "fear" appears nowhere in the statute. I get that you need to conflate "believe" with "fear" (the same way you dishonestly conflated "assault" with punching someone) to try to at least maintain the appearance of substance in your pathetic argument, but the fact of the matter is that Martin neither had to be fearful nor run away in a suitable display of fear before he had the legal right to defend himself.

Also, you missed this part:

Then prove what actually took place was criminal assault.

Please let us know how it's going with the evidence you're compiling to prove the crime you alleged actually took place.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, you are confused.


Because following someone is not evidence of an imminent unlawful act to a reasonable person. And furthermore we know that Martin wasn't concerned because he decided to talk to Rachel Jeantel instead of calling the police, nor did he try to leave even though he was no longer in Zimmerman's sight, in fact he came back to where Zimmerman was near the "T". Not the actions of someone who was in fear of imminent unlawful force.

You are claiming a fact. Do you have evidence supporting that claim?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The jury, and the Justice Department.

And critical thinkers.

It's been a tough year to be a Warrior.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't recall the jury rendering a verdict on whether or not Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Do you have a link?

Or - just for ****s and giggles - you could actually substantiate your claim with something other than a glib one-liner. A fact or two would be a refreshing change of pace. Got any?

It's been a rough year, hasn't it? At some point, you have to move on.

 

[johnny karate]

It's been a rough year, hasn't it? At some point, you have to move on.

Move on from what? People making ignorant claims?

Challenging ignorant claims is kind of the point of this forum.

And I see you're still clinging to yours without a shred of substantiation to back it up.

That collective gasp you don't hear is everyone who reads your posts not being shocked.