No one has to tell him to do it. People do it all the time when they think someone is "suspicious". It's not necessarily illegal in itself unless he attacked or followed him somewhere he wasn't allowed to be (like if he followed him onto his property. We don't have any evidence or witnesses saying he attacked TM.

 

I was only assuming that's what he was doing anyways. I don't know why he followed him and I'm not sure if he did follow him. I know he initially did go after him but we don't know what happened after the dispatcher told him to stop.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood. I took that phrase of your post as giving credibility for following Martin.

They keep talking about how GZ had grass stains on his back and his back was wet and that TM had grass stains on his knees and his knees were wet. Has that been testified to yet? One of the cable channels during the break (HLN I think) said that TM was on top beating ZM, MMA style, I know that's not been testified to in court yet. Where are these reports coming from?

Of course it hurts his credibility. But I'm still just finding links of his wife lying, which is why I believe she has been charged.

 

"It was done to hide the money so they could deceive the court, lie to the court. Mrs. Zimmerman lied to the court and this defendant just sat there and let it happen," That was from the prosecutors. The judge agreed that Zimmerman was guilty of lying as well by not saying anything about the money that had been raised--that is why the bail was revoked.

 

The phone calls mentioning the money and the second passport make him even more of a liar in my book.

 

"It was done to hide the money so they could deceive the court, lie to the court. Mrs. Zimmerman lied to the court and this defendant just sat there and let it happen," That was from the prosecutors. The judge agreed that Zimmerman was guilty of lying as well by not saying anything about the money that had been raised--that is why the bail was revoked.

 

The phone calls mentioning the money and the second passport make him even more of a liar in my book.

 

While that does hurt his credibility it appears I was right all along when I said he didn't actually lie, he just didn't speak up.

While that does hurt his credibility it appears I was right all along when I said he didn't actually lie, he just didn't speak up.

 

That's not the way the judge saw it. He said that he lied because he was agreeing with his wife's statements by not correcting her. He certainly lied about turning in his passport(s).

I'll ask again since everyone ignored it the first time....Multiple people have testified it was Zimmerman on top of Martin. If that's the case, does that shoot his self-defense angle to crap?

I'll ask again since everyone ignored it the first time....Multiple people have testified it was Zimmerman on top of Martin. If that's the case, does that shoot his self-defense angle to crap?

 

 

I would say that fact alone would not.

I would say that fact alone would not.

 

I'm curious as to how it doesn't. If you're on top of someone, you've obviously got the upperhand, and are not in a life-threatening position.

I'm curious as to how it doesn't. If you're on top of someone, you've obviously got the upperhand, and are not in a life-threatening position.

 

 

I certainly do not know the exact wording of the SYG law. My guess it centers on who starts it.

 

If A starts it with B but B is good enough to overcome A and end up on top of him I just don't see how that negates the SYG law.

I certainly do not know the exact wording of the SYG law. My guess it centers on who starts it.

 

If A starts it with B but B is good enough to overcome A and end up on top of him I just don't see how that negates the SYG law.

 

From what I recall, who starts it doesn't matter with the SYG law. If you start an altercation with me, I get the upper hand and you feel your life is in danger, you're allowed to gun me down.

From what I recall, who starts it doesn't matter with the SYG law. If you start an altercation with me, I get the upper hand and you feel your life is in danger, you're allowed to gun me down.

 

You could be right. No clue on the wording.

 

I just can't see the logic that says if A instigates it then B has to stop when he gets the upper hand. Defies logic.

This article gives a pretty good understanding of the law....Sounds like it doesn't apply to this case.

You could be right. No clue on the wording.

 

I just can't see the logic that says if A instigates it then B has to stop when he gets the upper hand. Defies logic.

 

Check out the article I just posted. The key paragraph is:

 

"As the main drafter of Florida's "stand your ground" law, I put language in the bill that states an innocent victim who is (a) not engaged in an unlawful activity, (b) is where he or she has a lawful right to be, © does not provoke the use of force, and (d) acts reasonably in the use of deadly force in defending himself or herself, may stand his or her ground rather than flee."

 

Point's © & (d) are the two that would come into play here, I'd think.

I'll ask again since everyone ignored it the first time....Multiple people have testified it was Zimmerman on top of Martin. If that's the case, does that shoot his self-defense angle to crap?

If Zimmerman was on top of Mrtin when he shot him then in my mind yes, it negates his self defense argument. However Zimmerman just being on top at some point during the fight does not. I don't think any witness actually saw him on top when the shot was fired did they?

Check out the article I just posted. The key paragraph is:

 

"As the main drafter of Florida's "stand your ground" law, I put language in the bill that states an innocent victim who is (a) not engaged in an unlawful activity, (b) is where he or she has a lawful right to be, © does not provoke the use of force, and (d) acts reasonably in the use of deadly force in defending himself or herself, may stand his or her ground rather than flee."

 

Point's © & (d) are the two that would come into play here, I'd think.

 

Who "provoked use of force" in this case?