Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

Fell for it, did you? Even after the facts were posted?

That "facts" confirm the website in question is genuine. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[crimresearch]

That "facts" confirm the website in question is genuine. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The facts prove that the genuine website is entirely different than the one you fell for.

 

[johnny karate]

The facts prove that the genuine website is entirely different than the one you fell for.

No, they don't.

Several sites purporting to raise money for Zimmerman, 28, have popped up since he shot Martin, 17, on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., but "I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites," Zimmerman writes on therealgeorgezimmerman.com.



Attorneys confirmed to NBC News that the site, which domain records show was created Sunday, is real and is operated by Zimmerman himself.

That news story was updated within the last few hours. The story you linked previously is from Friday. Apparently, the domain name has changed since then.

ETA: This is further reinforced by the fact that www.zimmermandefense.com isn't a valid web address.

 

[crimresearch]

The statues previously cited in this thread seem to pretty clearly indicate justification is not available to someone who provokes the use of force "unless 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".

When I previously stated Zimmerman's self-defense claim goes out the window if it can be determined he instigated the altercation, I forgot we were still pretending he was the victim of a near-fatal beating. Mea culpa.



Please stop personalizing the discussion. It's a violation of forum rules and only adds unnecessary hostility to an already heated topic.

It is no violation of the rules to point out your strawmen, or incorrect claims about the law, and about the facts of this case.
There is no rule that says responding to your incorrect claims is 'personalizing' anything, so spare me that strawman.
When you post unbelievable claims, you are going to be called on it.

Nothing in the law requires hospitalization for serious injuries, you are simply making that up.

And fear of a gun about to be used even if the gun is one's own is more than sufficient to meet the 'reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm' Supreme Court standard that I've cited and linked to over, and over.

Zimmerman's *claim* is that he reasonably feared that his own gun was going to be used against him. Whether that happened or not, the claim does meet the threshold for invoking self defense.

You weren't there, you don't have psychic powers, and based on what little is available, you have no proof.

Inconsistencies, speculations, and suspicions that his story won't add up in court have been pointed out (again, repeatedly), but your assertion that his self defense claim under 2(a) would be denied because he started the encounter is not true.

Whether it fits your imagination or not, the law operates under TOTC.

 

[johnny karate]

And fear of a gun about to be used even if the gun is one's own is more than sufficient to meet the 'reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm' Supreme Court standard that I've cited and linked to over, and over.

Fair enough. I thought we were going with the unverified claim Zimmerman was being severely beaten. Instead, we're going with the unverified claim that Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun.

Zimmerman's *claim* is that he reasonably feared that his own gun was going to be used against him. Whether that happened or not, the claim does meet the threshold for invoking self defense.

I'm not sure how reasonable that claim is, nor how what's reasonable in this case is determined.

 

[crimresearch]

Fair enough. I thought we were going with the unverified claim Zimmerman was being severely beaten. Instead, we're going with the unverified claim that Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun.



I'm not sure how reasonable that claim is, nor how what's reasonable in this case is determined.

I never said the claim was reasonable, I said he claimed to have 'reasonably been in fear for his life'.
That phrase has a specific meaning (explained very well by Freddy in an earlier post), as does TOTC, and it will be determined by a jury, following the Florida jury instruction statutes I've already posted.

 

[johnny karate]

I never said the claim was reasonable, I said he claimed to have 'reasonably been in fear for his life'.
That phrase has a specific meaning (explained very well by Freddy in an earlier post), as does TOTC, and it will be determined by a jury, following the Florida jury instruction statutes I've already posted.

Again, fair enough.

Now that we've determined what a thoroughly ignorant jackass I am, allow me to bump this post for you.

I am genuinely curious to read your rebuttal, and have it once again explained to me all the ways in which I am wrong.

 

[WildCat]

The statues previously cited in this thread seem to pretty clearly indicate justification is not available to someone who provokes the use of force "unless 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".

When I previously stated Zimmerman's self-defense claim goes out the window if it can be determined he instigated the altercation, I forgot we were still pretending he was the victim of a near-fatal beating. Mea culpa.



Please stop personalizing the discussion. It's a violation of forum rules and only adds unnecessary hostility to an already heated topic.

No one ever claimed there was a near-fatal beating, and the statute requires no such thing either.

That you grasp desperately at such straws is indicative that you fully understand the weakness of your position.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Do you guys think that website is legit or not? Numerous news organizations seem to be saying it's legit and confirmed by his lawyers. However his lawyers previously gave a different website. I'd vote it's a put-on, except for the supposed confirmations from the major networks.

 

[This is The End]

I know earlier links said the prosecutor wasn't going to go by the Grand Jury result, but I think this is news: It is canceled.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-20120410,0,6465226.story

On the eve of a scheduled hearing by a grand jury into Florida teen Trayvon Martin's shooting death, special prosecutor Angela Corey said Monday that she would forgo the proceedings and make the decision on charges herself.

OK, just refreshing even if it was in the earlier reports because this brings up my point:

If that prosecutor is canceling the grand jury tomorrow, I would say that pretty much guarantees there are going to be charges.

My reasoning is, if the prosecutor canceled the grand jury and then didn't press charges, people would be questioning whether or not the grand jury would have done the same.

So, I assume the prosecutor has already made the decision to press charges.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I know earlier links said the prosecutor wasn't going to go by the Grand Jury result, but I think this is news: It is canceled.

You aren't reading the thread are you ?

 

[crimresearch]

I know earlier links said the prosecutor wasn't going to go by the Grand Jury result, but I think this is news: It is canceled.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-20120410,0,6465226.story



OK, just refreshing even if it was in the earlier reports because this brings up my point:

If that prosecutor is canceling the grand jury tomorrow, I would say that pretty much guarantees there are going to be charges.

My reasoning is, if the prosecutor canceled the grand jury and then didn't press charges, people would be questioning whether or not the grand jury would have done the same.

So, I assume the prosecutor has already made the decision to press charges.

It is considered relatively easy to get a grand jury to return an indictment, but not guaranteed.

I presume she has her reasons for not using them in similar cases in the past.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12101/1223047-84.stm

Some interesting tidbits:

By stating that she will not be using the grand jury, she has signaled that charges of first-degree murder are not on the table. In Florida, those charges can be issued only by a grand jury and require a finding that the act was premeditated.

If Ms. Corey decided to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman, a judge must hold a special pretrial hearing under the Stand Your Ground law to determine whether Mr. Zimmerman's actions fall within the protections afforded by the statute. If so, the judge can end the proceeding there, granting the defendant immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits, said Miami criminal defense lawyer Jeffrey S. Weiner, who successfully defended a client recently under the law.

 

[This is The End]

You aren't reading the thread are you ?

Wow read my post.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I know earlier links said the prosecutor wasn't going to go by the Grand Jury result, but I think this is news: It is canceled.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-trayvon-martin-20120410,0,6465226.story

You aren't reading the thread are you ?

Wow read my post.

It was discussed that it was cancelled on the previous page, hence my comment in response to yours. I dispute it's worthy of a wow even if I was wrong .

 

[This is The End]

It was discussed that it was cancelled on the previous page, hence my comment in response to yours. I dispute it's worthy of a wow even if I was wrong .

OK, now this time try reading my post past the first line. The second sentence might be enlightening.

 

[This is The End]

Anyway, the point still stands that if the prosecutor doesn't press charges now there will be a huge up-rage about her canceling the grand jury. People will say maybe the grand jury would have issued charges.

So this pretty much guarantees that charges will be filed.

Also, I don't think many people ever thought first-degree murder was even on the table. So I don't think that is an issue.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Anyway, the point still stands that if the prosecutor doesn't press charges now there will be a huge up-rage about her canceling the grand jury. People will say maybe the grand jury would have issued charges.

So this pretty much guarantees that charges will be filed.

Also, I don't think many people ever thought first-degree murder was even on the table. So I don't think that is an issue.

I agree that going to a grand jury would have been the safe way to go for her to avoid blame if they did not come back with an indictment.

On the other hand someone said that if she has decided not to prosecute, not going to a grand jury allows her to release all the evidence into the public domain (I'm taking their word on that, I have no idea).

I'd definitely go with your guess though.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Do you guys think that website is legit or not? Numerous news organizations seem to be saying it's legit and confirmed by his lawyers. However his lawyers previously gave a different website. I'd vote it's a put-on, except for the supposed confirmations from the major networks.

At this point I'm going to go under the assumption it's his website since all the major news outlets are reporting that to be the case. Based on that assumption, I have to wonder what is going on with these attorney's?! A good attorney would be carefully controlling every aspect of this. Why didn't they tell him "if we are going to represent you, we have to advise you and approve anything you put up on the website"?!

How can they be letting him put up pictures of graffiti that says "free GZ" (supposedly done on the side of a black church?) and another sign that is from a Terry Jones rally (the nut job that wanted to burn the Koran)? That is where an attorney would say "you can't just use images you find on the Internet because we don't know where they are from".

Totally nuts!

 

[KatieG]

First, that is incorrect. Information on juvenile criminals is often released. It is public record regardless of age.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...fenders-in-2287956.html?cxtype=rss_crime_1341


http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-28/...-deaths-death-penalty-sentences?_s=PM:JUSTICE


http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...will-be-detained-under-jimmy-ryce-act/1221379

Individual cases can be sealed.

Second, that isn't what was claimed. The claim was that Trayvon's parents filed an injunction to force the court to seal criminal records *and* to seal school records.

That isn't the way it works, 18 or not.

How could you and your legal expert not know that?

A few days later but I felt I had to respond to this.

I misspoke, not my cousin. What I SHOULD have said was confidential, not sealed. He said confidential and I used the wrong word. Sorry for the confusion. You are correct that TM's parents could not have them sealed.