So if video suddenly appeared showing TM as the aggressor, pounding GZ's head into the sidewalk you would not change your mind. What about a recording of his discussion on the phone where he stated he was going to kill the CAC. Your so blinded that your eyes would not be open to other evidence if it was presented and went against your preconceived ideas?

 

Yeah I hope your never on a jury either.

 

You're coming up with off the wall, unrealistic possibilities regarding this specific case. Those things aren't there, they don't exist. Before the trial or jury-selection ever took place it was a well known fact that none of that existed.

 

As to TM being the aggressor, no, him beating up his stalker would not have me change my mind.

 

If in a similar case there was video evidence or audio evidence of the victim plotting to kill the murderer, yeah, I'd change my opinion, but none of that was present here so it has zero relevance. I'm not talking about murder cases in general, I'm talking about this specific case with these specific circumstances.

I'd never be the first person to pull a gun out and as of today I don't own a gun and I am not seriously or actively looking to become a gun owner. Just not on my to do list. I've made it 38 years and 11 months without a gun. I'm not in a hurry to own one.

 

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around....'getting beat up and then pulled my gun out'. How seriosuly are you being beat up if you can pull your gun out? Better yet, how in the world is TM beating him up and not taking his gun from him and shooting him? GZ is inches away from death apparently yet he was able to reach for and grab his gun but TM never thought about grabbing the gun or going for the gun yet GZ is claiming self-defense? If TM had GZ screaming help how in the world was GZ able to grab the gun and deliver kill shots? How does that happen?

 

I dunno, my understanding was that the gun was on his hip. TM may or may not have saw it. It would not be hard to grab it from a holster on the hip and shoot someone at point blank range though.

In KY you can, an I am pretty sure in FL you can also. Justifiable reasons for using deadly force in KY are 1) to prevent yourself from being killed, 2) to prevent yourself from receiving serious bodily harm (a single punch in the face is not enough, being pinned to the ground and being repeatedly punched would), 3) to prevent yourself from being raped, 4) someone breaking into your home, 5) someone trying to set your home on fire, (I think I am missing one). As far as I know, KY and FL justifiable reasons for using deadly force are very similar. In neither state does the attacker need to be armed.

 

 

 

Injuries being life treatening is not a requirement for using justifiable deadly force in KY and my guess FL either.

 

 

That would explain a lot.

I dunno, my understanding was that the gun was on his hip. TM may or may not have saw it. It would not be hard to grab it from a holster on the hip and shoot someone at point blank range though.

 

Even while he was claiming to be getting beat up so bad that he was screaming help? Better yet, he has the gun. Why scream help in the first place? His help was on his hip. If I have a gun I'm not screaming anything.

You're coming up with off the wall, unrealistic possibilities regarding this specific case. Those things aren't there, they don't exist. Before the trial or jury-selection ever took place it was a well known fact that none of that existed.

 

As to TM being the aggressor, no, him beating up his stalker would not have me change my mind.

 

If in a similar case there was video evidence or audio evidence of the victim plotting to kill the murderer, yeah, I'd change my opinion, but none of that was present here so it has zero relevance. I'm not talking about murder cases in general, I'm talking about this specific case with these specific circumstances.

No I'm asking about a similar situation, not this case. Just using this case as an example. You stated that your mind was made up and that you could not be unbiased on the jury due to what you knew prior to the trial. I just can't believe that anyone could be so blinded that they could not be swayed in the face of overwhelming evidence. So IF evidense like that came out in this trial (I know it's not going to) you still would not change your mind?

Even while he was claiming to be getting beat up so bad that he was screaming help? Better yet, he has the gun. Why scream help in the first place? His help was on his hip. If I have a gun I'm not screaming anything.

Maybe he didn't want to shoot him but felt he had no other option when help never arrived.

No I'm asking about a similar situation, not this case. Just using this case as an example. You stated that your mind was made up and that you could not be unbiased on the jury due to what you knew prior to the trial. I just can't believe that anyone could be so blinded that they could not be swayed in the face of overwhelming evidence. So IF evidense like that came out in this trial (I know it's not going to) you still would not change your mind?

 

I said in a similiar case where all the evidence isn't know beforehand, I could be swayed.

Even while he was claiming to be getting beat up so bad that he was screaming help? Better yet, he has the gun. Why scream help in the first place? His help was on his hip. If I have a gun I'm not screaming anything.

 

Don't forget his hands were supposedly pinned down. Also is the little conflicting detail where he said he got on top of him after he shot and pinned down TM's arms at his side....Too bad the police found the body with his arms completely underneath his chest.

I said in a similiar case where all the evidence isn't know beforehand, I could be swayed.

OK :lol2: my bad...I do respect your opinion on this case. At the beginning as I stated somewhere I tend to side with the prosecution in most cases. Being off work I've been able to watch most of the trial and just don't think they have proven their case.

That would explain a lot.

 

I think your statement about you can't shoot the winner of the fight is correct, if your attacker has wore himself out, relieved himself of his aggression, etc. (he has won the fight), and gets up off of you and starts to walk away, you cannot shoot him. If he is still on top of you and continuously beating you (winning the fight but he continues to beat you), if you can manage to reach your firearm, you are legally allowed to shoot him.

 

 

In this You Tube video, had the woman been armed, she had every right to shoot her attacker regardless as to whether he was armed. Do you disagree?

I think your statement about you can't shoot the winner of the fight is correct, if your attacker has wore himself out, relieved himself of his aggression, etc. (he has won the fight), and gets up off of you and starts to walk away, you cannot shoot him. If he is still on top of you and continuously beating you (winning the fight but he continues to beat you), if you can manage to reach your firearm, you are legally allowed to shoot him.

 

 

In this You Tube video, had the woman been armed, she had every right to shoot her attacker regardless as to whether he was armed. Do you disagree?

 

Two completely different scenarios. You can't compare an innocent white mother getting brutally attacked in front of her kid by a black male home invader to an unarmed black 17 year old being followed around his own neighborhood by an armed white/hispanic assailant for no reason.

 

 

Funny how in both situations people say the black guy should die though.

 

Yeah, too bad they didn't portray him as an unarmed kid who beat up the guy who was following him around for no reason and then was murdered for winning the fight.

 

So in your opinion I can physically assault someone who follows me a short distance?

Funny how in both situations people say the black guy should die though.

 

Oh please!

 

I don't think it is the media's fault if there is rioting and at the end of the day we need to take away from this situation that an unarmed kid was murdered by an adult because he won the fight between the two people.

 

A fight he allegedly initiated.

 

That's correct. It seems all one had to do to qualify as suspicious in GZ's book was be someone unfamiliar and black.

 

Well to be fair he said TM was walking in the rain and appeared to be looking in windows. Or at least I thought that's what I read somewhere.