Devils Advocate;1455203 wrote:Gee golly gosh. imagine a teen walking between houses in his own complex. Zimmerman referred to him as a ****ing coon. That's not racial?

It is also pretty hard to say it is self defense when you are the initial armed aggressor.

Zimmerman was walking back to his car when Martin appeared out of the dark and confronted him. That makes Martin the aggressor.

gut;1455237 wrote:On the other hand, if Travon had just kept walking he'd be home right now instead of dead.

+1

the truth is he was a thug and liked to fight, as shown by the defense on Martin's phone with video of him fighting and smoking weed and playing with guns while getting expelled from school and thrown out of the home by his mama. That's why he had just moved to his dad's apt. from Miami.

LJ;1455258 wrote:Typically something like this I would say that Martin and Zimmerman both got caught up in the wrong situation at the wrong time. The problem I have though is that Zimmerman has been arrested before for "playing cop" and chasing people. The guy was out looking for trouble, and I honestly hope the jury sees that.

Or Zimmerman was out looking to prevent trouble in his complex where a recent rash of burglaries were occurring.

or you're a stone racist.

LJ;1455278 wrote:If I was on the jury I would think different. I would think that he goes looking for trouble since he was chasing people, who were so scared that they had to call the cops to get him to back off.

You might be able to charge him with stalking, but you DO have a suspicious person in the context of recent break-ins. Being followed is a scary thing, but Zimmerman and other concerned neighbors DID form a neighborhood watch in response. Being followed/scared does not give someone the right to commit assault. Assault is not a self-defense argument when you're the aggressor and had an opportunity to avoid the confrontation.

The only law broken here is whomever committed assault. If you can't prove Zimmerman threw the first punch he walks. If not for stand your ground, you'd then have the issue of justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense, but my understanding is the law makes no such distinction.

LJ;1455264 wrote:Zimmerman engaged him. The stand your ground law, you have to be a complete innocent victim basically. He should not have put himself into the sitation at all. He should have called the cops and left. His intention was to confront Martin, just like all the other times he has been arrested for chasing people.

:rolleyes: He lost him while on the phone with police. He was walking back to his car to meet the police because he told the dispatcher he still wanted a car to respond to the apts. They weren't even going to send a car. Then Martin doubles back and confronts Zimmerman and a fight went down.
You should read Zimmerman's initial story, he had nothing to hide. He re-enacted everything with police from the minute he saw Martin to when he parked to when he lost him to when he got hit and shot Martin.

What are all the other times Zimmerman was "arrested for chasing people"?


edit: in Florida, you don't have to be a complete innocent victim to use the stand your ground law. I just saw a road rage case this morning regarding a guy who was arrested for shooting a guy and he won his hearing.

gut;1455347 wrote:You might be able to charge him with stalking, but you DO have a suspicious person in the context of recent break-ins. Being followed is a scary thing, but Zimmerman and other concerned neighbors DID form a neighborhood watch in response. Being followed/scared does not give someone the right to commit assault. Assault is not a self-defense argument when you're the aggressor and had an opportunity to avoid the confrontation.

The only law broken here is whomever committed assault. If you can't prove Zimmerman threw the first punch he walks. If not for stand your ground, you'd then have the issue of justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense, but my understanding is the law makes no such distinction.

It makes the distinction in mutual combat. The issue is, if they can't prove who threw the first punch, do they go to mutual combat? In that case the stand your ground doesn't apply at all.

from a florida law blog on mutual combat

Fights happen. A mutual combatant defense doesn't necessarily rely on "who threw the first punch." It is possible for two people to be face-to-face in an aggressive manner, challenging each other with words and gestures, and one person decides to act. The person who threw the first punch would still have a mutual combatant defense based on the totality of the circumstances.

That is what the prosecution will argue. That even if Martin threw the first punch, that Zimmerman was coming at him in an aggressive manner.

LJ;1455269 wrote: I think he also had an assault on an officer, but his judge daddy got that dismissed, so it's probably not admissible

:laugh:
Zimmerman — 21 at the time — was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested by state alcohol agents on suspicion of serving underage drinkers, according to an arrest report.Zimmerman was talking with his friend, became profane and pushed an agent who tried to escort him away, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle.
Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders

LJ;1455361 wrote:
That is what the prosecution will argue. That even if Martin threw the first punch, that Zimmerman was coming at him in an aggressive manner.

The prosecutors already told you their argument?

Why would you aggressively go into a fight in a dark yard when you could step back and pull a gun on the suspect?

LJ;1455361 wrote:It makes the distinction in mutual combat. The issue is, if they can't prove who threw the first punch, do they go to mutual combat? In that case the stand your ground doesn't apply at all.

Doesn't matter what the prosecution argues, it's what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is under no burden to prove it wasn't a case of mutual combat. "Aggressive manner" itself sounds inherently loaded with reasonable doubt, which is probably why "mutual combatant" is a DEFENSE.

gut;1455375 wrote:Doesn't matter what the prosecution argues, it's what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is under no burden to prove it wasn't a case of mutual combat. "Aggressive manner" itself sounds inherently loaded with reasonable doubt, which is probably why "mutual combatant" is a DEFENSE.

right it is a defense. Since Martin is dead, they will not only have to prove what Zimmerman did, but they will have to defend Martin's actions since he is not there to tell the story.

He does have to create doubt that it wasn't mutual combat though, as mutual combat nullifies stand your ground.

The whole situation is too murky for 2nd degree murder IMO.

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

I don't think that applies here at all honestly. I don't think Zimmerman went out looking to KILL Martin. His actions in the past show that he was more out to just play cop and get Martin.

Manslaughter by Act: Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.

LJ;1455378 wrote: He does have to create doubt that it wasn't mutual combat though, as mutual combat nullifies stand your ground.

No he doesn't - the prosecution would have to PROVE it was mutual combat. If Martin were on trial, he may successfully make the mutual combatant defense and that STILL wouldn't invalidate Zimmerman's stand your ground defense. Reasonable doubt as to Martin being guilty of assault is not equivalent to Zimmerman being a mutual combatant.

LJ, speaking of Zimmerman's actions in the past, how about showing where he was ARRESTED for chasing others?

All I find is the 'resisting an alcohol agent' I mentioned and this:

• In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

• In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court.

:huh:

gut;1455381 wrote:No he doesn't - the prosecution would have to PROVE it was mutual combat. If Martin were on trial, he may successfully make the mutual combatant defense and that STILL wouldn't invalidate Zimmerman's stand your ground defense. Reasonable doubt as to Martin being guilty of assault does not create some new or additional burden on Zimmerman.

Mutual combat blows the stand your ground defense up. You can't engage in mutual combat, then use stand your ground. That's not what stand your ground is. It's not "get into a fight then shoot the other guy"

LJ;1455383 wrote:Mutual combat blows the stand your ground defense up. You can't engage in mutual combat, then use stand your ground. That's not what stand your ground is. It's not "get into a fight then shoot the other guy"

You are totally wrong. The road rage case I mentioned, man stops at light, other man gets out of car and runs up to first car and punches driver. Driver shoots at that man and holds him and his wife at gunpoint until police respond. Driver arrested for aggravated assault with discharge of a firearm because he pointed gun at wife. He won his stand your ground hearing after refusing to plea.

LJ;1455383 wrote:Mutual combat blows the stand your ground defense up. You can't engage in mutual combat, then use stand your ground. That's not what stand your ground is. It's not "get into a fight then shoot the other guy"

Why would Zimmerman claim mutual combat? He's not going to make that defense.

Martin is not on trial here. Whether or not Martin believed HE was a mutual combatant isn't going to change the fact that Zimmerman is being assaulted. Martin claiming mutual combatant isn't going to invalidate a Zimmerman self-defense.

From the thread so far, it seems as if the people is the party more unlikely to get a fair trial.

Here is another case of stand your ground, happened a month after Martin was killed.

Let's say you are in your apt and see a guy stealing your car stereo. You grab a large knife and run out and chase him for a block, then fight and stab him to death.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense

Back in January, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck, which was parked outside Garcia's Miami apartment. Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios "but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished."
The Herald reports that a judge threw out the charges against Garcia, citing the state's "stand your ground" law. , the law did away with "the English Law concept of 'duty to retreat' from a situation that is dangerous outside your home." The Florida Supreme Court also decided that it should be a judge, not a jury, who decides whether to grant a suspect immunity based on the law.

gut;1455387 wrote:Why would Zimmerman claim mutual combat? He's not going to make that defense.

Martin is not on trial here. Whether or not Martin believed HE was a mutual combatant isn't going to change the fact that Zimmerman is being assaulted. Martin claiming mutual combatant isn't going to invalidate a Zimmerman self-defense.

Martin claiming mutual combatant isn't going to invalidate a Zimmerman self-defense.

Yes it is. You can't claim stand your ground when you are a mutual combatant. When you kill someone during mutual combat, it is manslaughter. It's why I think 2nd degree murder isn't the right charge. If they went Mansluaghter it would be easy. Zimmerman and Martin engage in mutual combat, Zimmerman shoots Martin, it's not self defense. Mutual combat is a defense for assault charges, and it goes against what is allowable for stand your ground.


If Zimmerman had got back into the car and Martin attacked him, then the Castle Doctrine would apply, and it would have been a completely different story.

LJ;1455394 wrote:Martin claiming mutual combatant isn't going to invalidate a Zimmerman self-defense.

Yes it is. You can't claim stand your ground when you are a mutual combatant. When you kill someone during mutual combat, it is manslaughter. It's why I think 2nd degree murder isn't the right charge. If they went Mansluaghter it would be easy. Zimmerman and Martin engage in mutual combat, Zimmerman shoots Martin, it's not self defense. Mutual combat is a defense for assault charges, and it goes against what is allowable for stand your ground.


If Zimmerman had got back into the car and Martin attacked him, then the Castle Doctrine would apply, and it would have been a completely different story.

ROTFLMAO

LJ;1455394 wrote: Yes it is. You can't claim stand your ground when you are a mutual combatant.

The state would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is not going to have to prove he was not a mutual combatant. I don't get what is so difficult to comprehend about that. He's not going to claim to be a mutual combatant.

It is entirely possible for Martin to avoid an assault conviction using the mutual combatant defense, while Zimmerman would also avoid an assault conviction claiming self-defense. Neither argument invalidates the other beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mutual combatant is a defense designed to raise reasonable doubt. I have no idea how you are trying to warp and bastardize the concept to convict Zimmerman. The concept is entirely loaded with perception and doubt, it's not a path to conviction. Martin's motivations or reasons to be beating on Zimmerman don't change the fact Zimmerman is being assaulted and can have an entirely different and justifiable perception of the events.

gut;1455402 wrote:The state would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is not going to have to prove he was not a mutual combatant. I don't get what is so difficult to comprehend about that. He's not going to claim to be a mutual combatant.

It is entirely possible for Martin to avoid an assault conviction using the mutual combatant defense, while Zimmerman would also avoid an assault conviction claiming self-defense.

Mutual combatant is a defense designed to raise reasonable doubt. I have no idea how you are trying to warp and bastardize the concept to convict Zimmerman. The concept is entirely loaded with perception and doubt, it's not a path to conviction. Martin's motivations or reasons to be beating on Zimmerman don't change the fact Zimmerman is being assaulted and can have an entirely different and justifiable perception of the events.

Yes it does, stand your ground does not apply under mutual combat. I never claimed that Zimmerman would be using it. He is trying to use stand your ground, since that does not apply under mutual combat, the prosecution would claim that.

LJ;1455403 wrote:Yes it does, stand your ground does not apply under mutual combat. I never claimed that Zimmerman would be using it. He is trying to use stand your ground, since that does not apply under mutual combat, the prosecution would claim that.

Again, Zimmerman does not have to prove it wasn't mutual combatant. Either the state will prove it was, or Zimmerman will use the stand your ground defense.

You can't get inside the head of the two. Mutual combat is not something there is any hope of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, that's why it's a defense and not a charge.

You can't seem to grasp that the prosecution merely claiming or positing it was mutual combat is not going to invalidate Zimmerman's stand your ground defense.

LJ;1455403 wrote:Yes it does, stand your ground does not apply under mutual combat. I never claimed that Zimmerman would be using it. He is trying to use stand your ground, since that does not apply under mutual combat, the prosecution would claim that.

If chasing a guy with a knife for a block then stabbing him to death = stand your ground, then Zimmerman is innocent, presuming he gets a fair trial, which he won't.

Your 'mutual combat' theory is ridiculous. No one can prove who started it, that's why the state wants to twist the recordings to claim Martin is the one screaming. Even if there was mutual combat, Zimmerman had a split head and broken nose, and had to defend himself with a gun that Martin allegedly tried to get.

Still waiting for your proof of Zimmerman's arrests for chasing others...

ActionJackson;1455413 wrote: Your 'mutual combat' theory is ridiculous.

Precisely. It's an affirmative self-defense THEORY, as difficult to prove as disprove, which is why it's effective.

For the prosecution to put that forth would probably help Zimmerman as they would be conceding that Martin threw the first punch and was assaulting Zimmerman.