George Zimmerman shot

sunmaster14 said:
Oh, absolutely it's possible that he was the aggressor here. I think it's pretty likely that he has anger management problems and doesn't have the good sense to back off of confrontation. That being said, the other guy is the one who actually did the shooting. That's pretty extreme. GZ's detractors hate him because he fired only one bullet at a person who was pummeling him. This guy fired at least two bullets at a guy who was in another car.

There's some inconsistency here, but I don't think it's on my side.
Click to expand...

Several articles mention that Apperson's revolver was fired, only once. Maybe GZ shot his own door? All we know about GZ's marksmanship is from one target at point blank range.
 
casebro said:
Several articles mention that Apperson's revolver was fired, only once. Maybe GZ shot his own door? All we know about GZ's marksmanship is from one target at point blank range.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that. Like you say, I thought it was mentioned that there was a bullet hole in the door too.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
As far as I'm concerned, you never asked about whether it was reasonable to be wary of Zimmerman or reasonable to expect that he would kill.

The only question of yours that I was answering was if anyone would be surprised if Zimmerman were killed in self defense.
Click to expand...
??? Are you serious?

What degree of gymnastics must you use to avoid something so patently obvious? IS It reasonable to suspect that Zimmerman will be involved in an activity where A.) a crime is committed. B.) Zimmerman is involved.

If that is reasonable then my original post stands and all of your hand waving and the rest was a giant waste of time.
 
Rare Truth said:
Pictures are all over the place --and that link is of someone else entirely.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell from the photo alone (you can look a lot different with a hair cut and some weight loss), but from the last link I gave, Apperson's middle name is Barbour, which doesn't match this sex offender.
 
16.5 said:
The above is the law in Florida

To the extent that this is inconsistent with the foregoing, it is erroneous.
Click to expand...

The burden of production lies on the defendant, not the burden of proof.

Apperson will never have to prove he acted in self-defense in a criminal trial.

And again, the law you cited was in reference to immunity not acquittal.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
??? Are you serious?

What degree of gymnastics must you use to avoid something so patently obvious? IS It reasonable to suspect that Zimmerman will be involved in an activity where A.) a crime is committed. B.) Zimmerman is involved.

If that is reasonable then my original post stands and all of your hand waving and the rest was a giant waste of time.
Click to expand...
Of course I'm serious. And don't call me "???".

Once more, from the top. You asked:

RandFan said:
I would not be surprised at all if someone killed Zimmerman in self defense. I'm curious, would anyone else be?
Click to expand...

I answered:

theprestige said:
I would be.
Click to expand...

Are we on the same page so far?

I see that my answer has been arbitrarily moved to a different thread, along with some of our other posts. I understand if this discontinuity is contributing to your confusion about what we've been discussing.
 
theprestige said:
You asked:

I would not be surprised at all if someone killed Zimmerman in self defense. I'm curious, would anyone else be?
Click to expand...
I answered:

I would be.
Click to expand...
Are we on the same page so far?
Click to expand...
Yes but entirely irrelevant to this particular point. If it's reasonable to be wary of Zimmerman then it's reasonable to not be surprised if someone kills him.

I'm not sure why you want to go through this again. I accept that you would be surprised. I'm not sure why you would but that's fine. IMO: Given Zimmerman's actions, the following would not surprise me.

A.) Zimmerman is wrongly killed because someone, for irrational reasons, feared him.
B.) Zimmerman is justifiably killed because someone reasonably perceived Zimmerman a threat.
C.) Zimmerman wrongly killed another person.
D.) Zimmerman justifiably killed another person.

IMO: All of these are not only reasonable but trivially obvious. If you disagree that's fine. I doubt many would disagree with me.
 
BenBurch said:
Brandishing is an accusation that is often one word against another. And it is a sufficient ground for a SYG case. Could have been DISPROVED if Z had no gun. Z had a gun. Nobody is going to be charged here.
Click to expand...

Bit of a tricky one, though. I think it'll depend a lot on the exact circumstances - where Apperson was when he fired the shot, where Zimmerman was, who was following who, etc. On the face of it it doesn't look great for Apperson that he shot through a closed car window, a window Zimmerman said he'd just closed - bit hard to believe that a person would close a car window in preparation for shooting someone through it. Looking at pictures of Zimmerman's car, the windows look heavily tinted enough that I'm not sure Apperson could've seen through them to know what Zimmerman was doing.

It's kind of worrying that someone can shoot at a person through a car window and not even be charged with anything - I mean, on that basis you could shoot at anyone and say you thought they were brandishing a gun, even if they weren't - but I guess we'll see.
 
katy_did said:
It's kind of worrying that someone can shoot at a person through a car window and not even be charged with anything - I mean, on that basis you could shoot at anyone and say you thought they were brandishing a gun, even if they weren't - but I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

Sounds like what Michael Dunn claimed. His conviction was never a sure thing. The first jury hung on the murder charge IIRC.

So yeah, exactly.
 
RandFan said:
Yes but entirely irrelevant to this particular point. If it's reasonable to be wary of Zimmerman then it's reasonable to not be surprised if someone kills him.
Click to expand...
To me it depends very much on the circumstances. You asked specifically about self-defense. I answered specifically about self-defense. Given other circumstances, I might find surprise more or less reasonable, depending.

I'm not sure why you want to go through this again.
Click to expand...
Mostly I'm just hoping for some closure in getting through it cleanly at least once. But it's looking a lot like that's not going to happen.

I accept that you would be surprised. I'm not sure why you would but that's fine.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you accept my answer. I'm curious to know why you seemed to not accept it at first, and what it was that changed your mind (but not so curious that you should feel it necessary to explain). I'm disappointed that my attempts to explain my reasoning to you failed so miserably.

IMO: Given Zimmerman's actions, the following would not surprise me.

A.) Zimmerman is wrongly killed because someone, for irrational reasons, feared him.
B.) Zimmerman is justifiably killed because someone reasonably perceived Zimmerman a threat.
C.) Zimmerman wrongly killed another person.
D.) Zimmerman justifiably killed another person.

IMO: All of these are not only reasonable but trivially obvious. If you disagree that's fine. I doubt many would disagree with me.
Click to expand...
That seems to just about wrap things up, then. I hope your opinions work out well for you. Maybe we can do this again some time. TTFN!
 
katy_did said:
It's kind of worrying that someone can shoot at a person through a car window and not even be charged with anything - I mean, on that basis you could shoot at anyone and say you thought they were brandishing a gun, even if they weren't - but I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

A pre-emptive strike to prevent an anticipated attack is a perfectly legitimate claim when there is a history of threats and violence from someone. The fact that it has been documented that The Zim had previously waved a gun and threatened to kill this guy adds some weight to this being actual self defence.
 
qayak said:
A pre-emptive strike to prevent an anticipated attack is a perfectly legitimate claim when there is a history of threats and violence from someone. The fact that it has been documented that The Zim had previously waved a gun and threatened to kill this guy adds some weight to this being actual self defence.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. It's been documented that Apperson claimed Zimmerman previously waved a gun and threatened to kill him. It has not been documented that he actually did so.

And you either misunderstand or misrepresent self defense law. It doesn't matter if an attack is anticipated, it must be imminent. If I said, "I will kill you next week", you do not have the legal right to use deadly force against me right now.
 
RandFan said:
Sounds like what Michael Dunn claimed. His conviction was never a sure thing. The first jury hung on the murder charge IIRC.

So yeah, exactly.
Click to expand...

The one big difference between this incident and the Dunn case is that there actually was a gun in Zimmerman's car.

Had the kids that Dunn shot at actually had the gun that he fabricated, I doubt he would have been convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom