TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

A-R wrote:Been thinking this myself. While I realize this is not what this means "legally", in a nutshell if the jury acquitted Zimmerman they in effect "convicted" Trayvon of a crime.

I disagree. If the jury doesn't know who attacked first, that's reasonable doubt right there. They are not required to convict Martin to acquit Zimmerman.

Are you asserting that there's reasonable doubt that Trayvon committed aggravated battery on Zimmerman?

I think so because we really don't know who started it. George could have started it and then Trayvon began to put a whooping and him. We just don't know. Given the testimony about George's physical prowess, that's not very likely, but we just don't know.

I do agree, though, that his acquittal does not necessarily mean that Trayvon was guilty.

I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

I think the nexus of the problem is at the feet of the governor who appointed a special prosecutor who in turn overcharged Zimmerman. This was all done with the clear understanding that the Sanford PD had already conducted a thorough investigation. By overcharging, they guaranteed that Zimmerman would walk, that the general public, not being well schooled in criminal justice, would scream that this was not justice becasue justice only occurs when the lynch mob is satisfied, but in the end, the governor looks good because he 'sought justice'. There is probably some much more minor charge that might have been provable, but going the the jugular, they guaranteed a loss for the state. Now, if the whiners would only take a breath and sit back they might realize that actual justice did in fact occur because the evidence presented to the jury proved that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder 2. Maybe discharging a firearm within city limits, but not murder 2.

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

Valor wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

No, the evidence also shows Martin was NOT assaulted, other than the gunshot and some marks on his hands. Zimmerman had the well- documented injuries to his face and back of his head and no marks on his hands.

So how and where did Zimmerman EVER assault Martin before the fatal shot.

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

One juror has now spoken with the media, and that's what she said. That she believed that Martin threw the first punch, that Zimmerman feared for his life, and that was the most compelling factor.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/z ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Valor wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

As an example of my previous post, this is from the rapper "Gorilla Zoe", the song is Get Off of Me

My chain look like Minutemaid, lemonade and ice tea
Haters lookin' thirsty like they wanna take it off of me
Get off of me, get off of me
That A I get 'em off of me
That hundred round drum like a grill
Tell 'em bring the beef
I do it so properly
They do it so sloppily
These boys ain't got no game, so mane they tryna take it off of me
Man up, that's your girlfriend
Tell your girl stop callin' me
Textin' me and stalkin' me
Get your girlfriend off of me

The song is full of similar references, none of which have anything to do with someone actually being atop another person (many of the other lyrics, I would not post here):
http://rapgenius.com/Gorilla-zoe-get-off-of-me-lyric" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face?

Nope. I'm saying that they were close enough of for Martin to tell Trayvon to "get off", and that it doesn't mean "you are sitting on me and I want you to get off". Please, don't twist what I said.

Valor wrote:Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose.

Except that doesn't fit the "ear witness" testimony given.

Valor wrote:We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

I disagree about the reasonable doubt, but I also believe it's moot. I don't think there will be a civil trial. If there is, all of the evidence supporting Zimmerman would be able to be admitted. The Martin's don't want that. Plus, they've already gotten their multi-million dollar settlement from the HOA. Zimmerman has no money to sue for.

ScooterSissy wrote:If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Consider the phrase, "Step off my grill, dawg." It's an idiomatic expression, not intended to be taken literally.

Usually.

apostate wrote:Consider the phrase, "Step off my grill, dawg." It's an idiomatic expression, not intended to be taken literally.

I have no idea how to interpret that.... Does "grill" mean a grill (for cooking), a grill (the front of a car), a grill (the front of a car for teeth), or is it an incorrect use of the verb grill (the act of cooking) or grill (to ask questions)?

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

I disagree. Mr. Martin is not and was not on trial. But had he been, I think there is more than enough physical evidenced to prove (maybe not beyond a shadow of a doubt) but beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martin committed aggravated assault that night, (or perhaps the right charge would be assault and battery--IANAL).

Even if Zimmerman touched him, that still does not give a person the right to mount the other person and hit them MMA style. IF Zimmerman grabbed him (and we have no evidence of that whatsoever) Martin had the right to shove him off or (maybe) hit him enough to get away, but not to pound his head into the pavement. Remember the pharmacist that got convicted of first degree murder because he shot the person when they were no longer a threat. Same thing here with fists. But this is entirely theoretical because all evidence we have points to Martin hitting Zimmerman because he felt disrespected, he was angry not scared. I think the phone call with Genteel (sp?) showed that fairly conclusively.

Valor wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

That is incorrect. She stated that Trayvon said "get off". But she added that to her original testimony, so it's questionable if he even said it. Last night on Piers Morgan she claimed Trayvon was a peaceful, mellow person. We know that's not true from his text messages. Her testimony was not credible.

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

There won't be one. Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.