View Single Post
  #58    
Old July 17th, 2013 (05:38 AM). Edited July 17th, 2013 by Inyotef.
Inyotef's Avatar
Inyotef
Can I be as my God Am
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Between the whale and wasp
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
Send a message via Skype™ to Inyotef
Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
Again, a subjective, completely one-dimensional analysis of the events that occurred.
Thanks.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.
Where did this trespassing allegation come from? I never heard anything about it.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.
First, I don't think it's 'troubling', I quite frankly see it as wrong and defiant.
Second, the police told him to stay where he was. In a sense, he violated the law by disobeying orders from police.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
Fear of his life was not substantiated in court.
Considering Zimmerman was the only one to confirm that, of course it was.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means.
So it's Trayvon's fault he got shot. Nice one.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden.
So it's Trayvon's side of the courtroom that has to deal with Zimmerman's shoddy retelling of what happened?

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:
This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.
Personally, I think it should, in any case, definitely questioned. You wouldn't want that though, would you? Also, didn't you say earlier that they couldn't be sure who the aggressor was? Methinks you did .
Reply With Quote