Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?
Posted by **Old Flat Top** on Jul 21, 2013 at 7:36:34 AM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **Johnny D** on Jul 20, 2013 at 11:16:46 PM:
****There was also testimony to the contrary, but even granting what you say is true, that doesn't say anything about who started the fight, does it?
***Just some thoughts, and NOT directed at you or anyone:
***The Jury can not give a verdict based on who started the fight.
**What's your legal opinion based upon? The question of who started the fight seems very relevant to a claim of self-defense. Otherwise, we would have a situation where someone could start a fight, shoot the other person when he begins to lose, and have no responsibility legally. As far as I know, legally, if a person starts a fight, they usually can't claim self-defense.
*My non-legal opinion is that the jury had no witnesses to testify as to who started the fight. The evidence and the witnesses claimed only the action AFTER whoever started anything in some fight.
*For a legal view, it is "my understanding" that if it is proven that someone was "unlawful" in approaching or retaining someone, (as in some criminal act of any kind), then the self defense claim would, or should be, dismissed by the jury. So, with the jury not given any proof of a criminal restraint by Zimmerman, there was no way for them to give a verdict based on who started the fight. THEY or any of us don't really know. They and us only know who was the current aggressor right before the shot, proven by the witnesses and the evidence of the angle of the shot and the way it went through the sweatshirt, with a gap between it and Trayvon, (HIM leaning over at the time of the shot). The WHO started the fight is now only known by Zimmerman. The jury had nothing to go for that part of it, is my point. Thanks.
The jury had the sworn testimony of George Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin threatened him with death("Tonight you die")then smashed and broke his nose knocking him to the ground.
Testimony given under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth HAS to be accepted as just that UNLESS PROVEN not to be. Innocence is presumed and believed and does NOT have to be proven.
***That is just for others to debate, and be mad or not about who they THINK started the fight. For better or worse. The jury only heard and saw what was presented to them, not what was shown and heard on TV night after night. It might not be a factor anyway, given the actual fight is when the fear factor for one's life can happen, or even without a fight, one can claim fear for their life, and the goes Bang. The Who started anything doesn't seem to apply to the right to defend with deadly force. ???
That is correct, but if it is KNOWN that Zimmerman actually started the physical fighting then Trayvon was acting in self defense and Zimmerman was the aggressor who could've stopped aggressing rather than escalate.
It would be a much different case and at least manslaughter.
- Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? - **Johnny D** - Jul 21, 2013 at 12:51:59 PM
- Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? - **BlackMonk** - Jul 21, 2013 at 1:54:13 PM
- Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? - **Johnny D** - Jul 21, 2013 at 7:48:36 PM
- Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? - **BlackMonk** - Jul 21, 2013 at 8:18:39 PM
- Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? - **Johnny D** - Jul 22, 2013 at 12:35:24 AM
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 26, 2013