Atheistforums.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/cr ... alysts-say (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15909-zimmerman-prosecution-imploding-analysts-say)

QuoteThe prosecution of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin last year appears to be collapsing, thanks in large part to testimony offered by witnesses called by prosecutors, according to legal experts and analysts. Even though the judge refused to allow Martin's history of drug use, fighting, and school suspensions into evidence, explosive witness testimony provided during the trial may still prove devastating to authorities and their bid to convict Zimmerman.

More than a few commentators have suggested that the murder charges were concocted to satisfy race profiteers, the out-of-control U.S. Justice Department, and the establishment media. Critics of the prosecution, including heavy-hitting law professors and attorneys, say prosecutors have engaged in ethical violations in what appears, to many analysts at least, to be an over-zealous bid to convict Zimmerman in the absence of solid evidence.  

Well, don't count your chickens before they hatch. The prosecution may seem weak in the court of public opinion, but public opinion means jack diddly if the jury feels that the prosecution made its case.

Cases are won and lost in jury selection. If the prosecution was trying to "throw" the case, they could have done it there as well.

It was a weak case to begin with.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It was a weak case to begin with.

I've never really expected a conviction.

Quote from: "wolf39us"http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15909-zimmerman-prosecution-imploding-analysts-say

QuoteThe prosecution of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin last year appears to be collapsing, thanks in large part to testimony offered by witnesses called by prosecutors, according to legal experts and analysts. Even though the judge refused to allow Martin's history of drug use, fighting, and school suspensions into evidence, explosive witness testimony provided during the trial may still prove devastating to authorities and their bid to convict Zimmerman.

More than a few commentators have suggested that the murder charges were concocted to satisfy race profiteers, the out-of-control U.S. Justice Department, and the establishment media. Critics of the prosecution, including heavy-hitting law professors and attorneys, say prosecutors have engaged in ethical violations in what appears, to many analysts at least, to be an over-zealous bid to convict Zimmerman in the absence of solid evidence.  

I didn't figure you for a John Bircher, Wolf.

I don't even know who this John Bircher is.  I merely came across this via Google

The New American is the John Birch Society magazine.

I haven't been following the case, but I wouldn't make any bets based on what The New American opines.

True, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. JBS is pretty far right wing, but that doesn't necessarily mean what they have to say in this instance is automatically wrong.

Like I have written before, regardless of what you feel is right or wrong in this case, there is a precedence of law in this country. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was on the books at the time, and that precedence is going to be hard to overcome by the prosecution, especially since only one side gets to tell their side of the story.

I don't expect Zim to get convicted. The whole thing is a show, demanded by outraged folks who think that demanding a higher consequence for shit you cannot prove somehow makes the proving less necessary. Crazy think.

Quote from: "aitm"I don't expect Zim to get convicted. The whole thing is a show, demanded by outraged folks who think that demanding a higher consequence for shit you cannot prove somehow makes the proving less necessary. Crazy think.

100% agree. It's nothing more than capitulating to the masses in order to avoid racial unrest like the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict. Ironically, when Zim gets acquitted (which I think he will), there may still be riots. They may have only delayed the inevitable.

Unless of course we just lynch Zimmerman to appease the public. Fuck the law - let's vote on what happens to him, like the coliseum in ancient Rome!

Quote from: "Seabear"True, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. JBS is pretty far right wing, but that doesn't necessarily mean what they have to say in this instance is automatically wrong.

Like I have written before, regardless of what you feel is right or wrong in this case, there is a precedence of law in this country. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was on the books at the time, and that precedence is going to be hard to overcome by the prosecution, especially since only one side gets to tell their side of the story.

If Zimmerman's story is true stand your ground never applied in this case. Even in states without stand your ground laws there is no duty to retreat when someone is sitting on your chest punching you in the face. That's why the defense didn't take that position, and the only time it has been talked about was the press saying what a terrible law it is.

You guys should check out some of the other stories in The New American. Apparently death panels ARE real.

Well yea. Insurance companies have employed them for years.

Quote from: "Jmpty"You guys should check out some of the other stories in The New American. Apparently death panels ARE real.

Lol, well, maybe one can ignore them out of hand, if that's the case...

If nothing else, it at least revealed the stupidity of the stand your ground laws.

I still think stalking and provoking someone makes you at fault, but if the law says otherwise... well, I guess it is what it is.

Quote from: "Shiranu"If nothing else, it at least revealed the stupidity of the stand your ground laws.

I still think stalking and provoking someone makes you at fault, but if the law says otherwise... well, I guess it is what it is.

I agree 100%. But I can almost guarantee someone will be along to point out that there is nothing illegal about following another person nor is there anything illegal about acting in a way that might make the other person feel threatened enough to attack you.

And they're right, there is nothing ilegal about it. But just like you, I think it constitutes provoking someone into attacking you which ought to negate any application of the stand your ground law IMO. But what do I know? I'm just a schmuck from up North. :shrug:

Quote from: "Seabear"Fuck the law - let's vote on what happens to him

It's called jury nullification.  The jury quite often votes not on whether the prosecution proved its case, but on whether the law should be applied (or, in this case, they may vote on whether "stand your ground" should apply).

Quote from: "Johan"there is nothing illegal about following another person

Depending on circumstances, you could be charged with stalking.

Quotenor is there anything illegal about acting in a way that might make the other person feel threatened enough to attack you.

Inciting to commit assault.

QuoteAnd they're right, there is nothing ilegal about it.

Oh, there is.  It just takes a courageous prosecutor to try to prosecute it.  "Law and Order" isn't very realistic.

QuoteBut just like you, I think it constitutes provoking someone into attacking you which ought to negate any application of the stand your ground law IMO.

I think "stand your ground" laws should all be done away with, except for attacks that occur within your home or place of work.  You shouldn't be legally obligated to run from a place you have more legal right to be in than the person attacking you has.

Quote from: "Colanth"I think "stand your ground" laws should all be done away with, except for attacks that occur within your home or place of work.  You shouldn't be legally obligated to run from a place you have more legal right to be in than the person attacking you has.

I think you shouldn't be legally obligated to run from a public sidewalk. Stand your ground serves a legitimate purpose, it may need to be tweaked but not done away with.

Zimmerman might be guilty of stalking the kid and should face penalties for that. but if he is proven to have killed the kid because of self defense, than he isn't guilty of murder.

just because he's guilty of the first doesn't make him guilty of the second.

lets assume Treyvon had kiled Zimmerman.

would you excuse the killing because Treyvon was provoked by being followed? if not then you acknowledge zimmermans wrongful act of stalking doesn't negate his right to self defense if Treyvon attacked him.

Zimmerman was wrong to stalk the kid,  and not listen to the 911 operator. Treyvon was wrong to attack instead of calling the cops. (assuming Treyvon attacked first)

now if it turns out Zimmerman also started the fight, as well as the stalking, then he is guilty of second degree murder imo.

Zimmerman didn't invoke the Stand Your Ground law at trial.  He only invoked self defense.

Right, from my English law perspective, I would consider Zimmerman to probably be guilty of assault at common law (intentionally or recklessly causing another to anticipate immediate unlawful force). As for the homicide issue at hand, whilst my knowledge of how self-defence has been developed by the courts and legislature in Florida is admittedly limited, if I've understood correctly, like in my jurisdiction, there is no general duty to retreat. Here invoking self-defence in criminal law would require the belief in the threat to be honest and the force to be reasonable. Can anybody tell me what the stance is in Florida? Does the belief have to be honest and reasonable or honest alone? Does the force need to be reasonable/proportionate?

The nigger was walking around at night for christ sake...AT NIGHT....in a mostly white neighborhood....jesus h christ and then, mother fucker was wearing a HOODIE! Got damn that is all I need to put my huntin boots on, we just can't have that shit in modern day amurica.....fuck no.

Quote from: "aitm"The nigger was walking around at night for christ sake...AT NIGHT....in a mostly white neighborhood....jesus h christ and then, mother fucker was wearing a HOODIE! Got damn that is all I need to put my huntin boots on, we just can't have that shit in modern day amurica.....fuck no.

Even if you're trolling it's not funny.

Quote from: "wolf39us"http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15909-zimmerman-prosecution-imploding-analysts-say

QuoteThe prosecution of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin last year appears to be collapsing, thanks in large part to testimony offered by witnesses called by prosecutors, according to legal experts and analysts. Even though the judge refused to allow Martin's history of drug use, fighting, and school suspensions into evidence, explosive witness testimony provided during the trial may still prove devastating to authorities and their bid to convict Zimmerman.

More than a few commentators have suggested that the murder charges were concocted to satisfy race profiteers, the out-of-control U.S. Justice Department, and the establishment media. Critics of the prosecution, including heavy-hitting law professors and attorneys, say prosecutors have engaged in ethical violations in what appears, to many analysts at least, to be an over-zealous bid to convict Zimmerman in the absence of solid evidence.  

I've been watching this trial and it seems to me that noone in their right mind could find Zimmeran innocent. He foolowed the boy, lied about his knowledge of the streets, told a wild story that makes NO sense concerning the fight and how the gun came into play. Even with all the pro-gun conservaturds who are suppose to give "expert" testimony, you can't get around the fact that Travon Martin had NO blood on his hands and didn't start the fight. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman has changed his story no less than eight times sometimes in the very same sentence. The most damaging is the interview with Hannity. Hannity interviewed Zimmerman because FOX is pro Zimmerman and Hannity was throwing softballs for Zimmerman to answer. Zimmerman screwed up and said that Martin was running away, then caught himself and said that Martin was skipping away. He then states that is was "god's will' as if god wanted Zimmerman to kill Martin. When Hannity asked him if he could change things the unremorseful Zimmerman said no!
It is plain to see that Zimmerman is a macho wannabe and stalked Martin and because of that attitude and mindset he KILLED Martin!

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "wolf39us"http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15909-zimmerman-prosecution-imploding-analysts-say

QuoteThe prosecution of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin last year appears to be collapsing, thanks in large part to testimony offered by witnesses called by prosecutors, according to legal experts and analysts. Even though the judge refused to allow Martin's history of drug use, fighting, and school suspensions into evidence, explosive witness testimony provided during the trial may still prove devastating to authorities and their bid to convict Zimmerman.

More than a few commentators have suggested that the murder charges were concocted to satisfy race profiteers, the out-of-control U.S. Justice Department, and the establishment media. Critics of the prosecution, including heavy-hitting law professors and attorneys, say prosecutors have engaged in ethical violations in what appears, to many analysts at least, to be an over-zealous bid to convict Zimmerman in the absence of solid evidence.  

I've been watching this trial and it seems to me that noone in their right mind could find Zimmeran innocent. He foolowed the boy, lied about his knowledge of the streets, told a wild story that makes NO sense concerning the fight and how the gun came into play. Even with all the pro-gun conservaturds who are suppose to give "expert" testimony, you can't get around the fact that Travon Martin had NO blood on his hands and didn't start the fight. You can't get around the fact that Zimmerman has changed his story no less than eight times sometimes in the very same sentence. The most damaging is the interview with Hannity. Hannity interviewed Zimmerman because FOX is pro Zimmerman and Hannity was throwing softballs for Zimmerman to answer. Zimmerman screwed up and said that Martin was running away, then caught himself and said that Martin was skipping away. He then states that is was "god's will' as if god wanted Zimmerman to kill Martin. When Hannity asked him if he could change things the unremorseful Zimmerman said no!
It is plain to see that Zimmerman is a macho wannabe and stalked Martin and because of that attitude and mindset he KILLED Martin!

Source for the bolded part? I think you're talking about the prosecution's witnesses, mate, not Zimmerman.

I'd also like a link to this interview you claim is so damaging, if you wouldn't mind.

Quote from: "mykcob4"you can't get around the fact that Travon Martin had NO blood on his hands and didn't start the fight.

How is it known as a fact that Martin didn't start the fight?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "mykcob4"you can't get around the fact that Travon Martin had NO blood on his hands and didn't start the fight.

How is it known as a fact that Martin didn't start the fight?

This. I agree that the Zimmerman used excessive force even if Martin started the fight, but how do you know that he didn't start the fight? Iirc they're still trying to figure that part out.

The prosecution has won the argument that the jury should be able to convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter. They wouldn't go that route if they were confident of a guilty verdict.

I think it is highly probable Martin started the fight, which any sane person would do if they felt they couldn't outrun a guy who has been stalking you for several minutes in a truck. Rather get shot in the chest than in the back.

That is ultimately irrelevant to Zimmerman's guilt imo. Zimmerman created the situation, therefor he is guilty to an extent. Do I think he needs 30 years in jail? No, I would be happy with 5. I don't think he was looking for a fight or to kill anyone, I think he was on a power-trip because he had a gun and was the self-appointed neighbour hoodwatch, got into a situation he couldn't control and made a poor decision.

I don't personally think he is a bad guy, I think he is just a fucking idiot.

If you cannot convict Zimmerman for Murder in the 2nd on grounds of self-defense, this should apply all the same to Manslaughter.  Self-Defense, is self-defense!

Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't personally think he is a bad guy, I think he is just a fucking idiot.

This is about where I am with it as well.

Rapist shot you after you fight back? Self defense!
Guy is about to mug you so you fight back and he kills you? Self defense!
Provoke anyone into any sort of fight, claim your felt threatened? Self defense!

Sorry, but this sets a really bad precedent for what "self defense" is.

Quote from: "random_person"Can anybody tell me what the stance is in Florida? Does the belief have to be honest and reasonable or honest alone? Does the force need to be reasonable/proportionate?

The concept of "reasonable man" (what would a reasonable man do - or expect) is relevant at all times, but it's not something the court would bring up.  One of the attorneys has to.  Many cases have been won or lost because an attorney failed to raise a point.

In this case, it seems that Zimmerman had no reasonable ground under which to follow Martin, so he was stalking.  In Florida, a black man being stalked by a seemingly white man in a white neighborhood has reasonable grounds to feel threatened.  The relative levels of culpability seem reasonable to me, given the knowledge I currently have.  And, since there was evidently malice aforethought (Zimmerman wasn't following Martin just to see where Martin was going), it's pretty serious.

Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

Quote from: "wolf39us"Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "wolf39us"Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

It also would help if he was, you know, actually part of the crime watch.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "wolf39us"Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

Maybe in principal, but in practice -- the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

And Zimmerman was not only part of Neighboorhood watch, he was the captain...

Reefer Madness, an Unfortunate Redux

By CARL L. HART
 
Published: July 11, 2013
 
 
     
Was Trayvon Martin aggressive and paranoid from smoking marijuana, and did that lead him to attack George Zimmerman? That's what lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman are arguing. He is on trial for killing Mr. Martin, but claims he acted in self-defense, and the judge in the racially charged, nationally followed case decided earlier this week that the jury could be presented with Mr. Martin's toxicology report, which shows that he had marijuana in his system.



.

As a neuropsychopharmacologist who has spent 15 years studying the neurophysiological, psychological and behavioral effects of marijuana, I find this line of reasoning laughable. The toxicology exam, which was conducted the morning after Mr. Martin was killed, found a mere 1.5 nanograms per milliliter of blood of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in his body. This strongly suggests he had not ingested marijuana for at least 24 hours. This is also far below the THC levels that I have found necessary, in my experimental research on dozens of subjects, to induce intoxication: between 40 and 400 nanograms per milliliter. In fact, his THC levels were significantly lower than the sober, baseline levels of about 14 nanograms per milliliter of many of my patients, who are daily users. Mr. Martin could not have been intoxicated with marijuana at the time of the shooting; the amount of THC found in his system was too low for it to have had any meaningful effect on him.

Some observers of the case note that the toxicology test also found 7.3 nanograms per milliliter of THC-COOH, one of the main metabolic byproducts formed as the liver breaks down THC. But these metabolites of marijuana have no psychoactive properties, and they have no effect on behavior. They can also remain in the body, like THC itself, for up to four weeks. This is why their presence does not reveal when — or exactly how much of — the drug was used.

For argument's sake, though, suppose that the tiny amount of THC found in Mr. Martin's blood somehow managed to mildly intoxicate him that night. The scientific studies, including my own research, on the short-term effects of the drug on cognitive functioning show how unlikely it is that marijuana could have caused him to behave erratically or have difficulty following instructions.

Granted, the drug can temporarily slow people down in completing familiar tasks that involve memory or abstract reasoning, and it can lower a person's level of vigilance or focus. But research subjects in my studies have shown that they can make plans, exhibit self-control and cooperate closely with others even under heavy influence of marijuana — never mind when only slightly affected, as Mr. Martin could, at most, have been.

There is a broader point to be made, though. Regardless of how intoxicated Mr. Martin was, the research tells us that aggression and violence are highly unlikely outcomes of marijuana use. Based on my own work, during which I have administered thousands of doses of marijuana, I can say that its main effects are contentment, relaxation, sedation, euphoria and increased hunger, all peaking within 5 to 10 minutes after smoking and lasting for about two hours. It is true that very high THC concentrations — far beyond Mr. Martin's levels — can cause mild hallucinations and paranoia, but even these effects are rare and usually seen only in very inexperienced users.

If anything, it is marijuana withdrawal that can increase aggression. But it, too, is rare and is mainly seen after abrupt cessation of heavy, almost daily use of the drug. We have seen no evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin was this kind of user, making it unlikely that marijuana withdrawal could have made him act aggressively toward Mr. Zimmerman. Remember, too, that Mr. Martin calmly purchased iced tea and candy from a 7-Eleven store shortly before his encounter with Mr. Zimmerman, which contradicts the notion that he was uncontrollably aggressive or at all paranoid at the time, whether from marijuana use, withdrawal or anything else.

There was a time, back in the 1930s, when scientific data on marijuana was thin on the ground. This left us vulnerable to exaggerated anecdotal accounts of its harms, especially its supposed tendency to induce aggression or even insanity. Newspapers and magazines routinely ran stories drawing a connection between marijuana use and heinous crimes, and some people even claimed it was a cause of matricide. These fables contributed to its de facto criminalization in 1937, through the Marijuana Tax Act. During Congressional hearings that year concerning the act, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Administration) declared, "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Seven decades and hundreds of studies later, we no longer have an excuse for indulging the myth of "reefer madness." It has no place in our courts — which means Mr. Martin's toxicology report doesn't, either.
 

Carl L. Hart, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University, is the author of "High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know about Drugs and Society."

When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

"In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."

Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.

Trayvon Martin: 15 facts you need to know about teen shot in Sanford, Fla.

"The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program," NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."

The USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program manual advises volunteers about how to notice basic things about persons deemed to be suspicious such as height, weight, style of dress, and hair color. Local law enforcement agents also work with official groups to tailor specifications concerning how to discern potential criminal activity depending on the particular communities they are in. In this way, Neighborhood Watch has assured theGrio that the potential for racial profiling is curtailed. In Zimmerman's case, he would have recognized that Trayvon Martin was a non-suspicious part of the citizenry had he received proper training. The complex where he was killed is middle class and mixed race.

But registration with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program — which would have provided this training — is not a requirement for forming a group.

"We've got approximately 25,000 neighborhood watches registered now, and the neighborhood watches out there far exceed that number," Chris Tutko, the Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association told theGrio. "We give people the ability to register if they want to. What registration does is give groups a repository of resources." Registration also pairs groups with local law enforcement mentors, who sometimes run background checks on members.

theGrio: How black Hollywood has reacted to Trayvon Martin death

"But it's not mandatory," Tutko continued. "A group of people can get together in an apartment building and say, 'we're going to watch out for each other.' And that's it."

As Zimmerman acted as part of an unofficial group (or perhaps alone), he was free to make decisions without the benefit to his community of being vetted by police. Ultimately leaders of individual groups — if they are official groups — are responsible for asking police to run routine checks on new members. Sometimes this lack of precaution is a resource issue.

"When you are dealing with thousands of volunteers — people who have said we are going to step up to the plate and help make our neighborhood better — if it's someone that I or an officer has an uncomfortable feeling about, or a neighbor might come up and say 'that person really isn't safe,' we check it out," Caldwell said. "We try to be careful about who becomes part of the Neighborhood Watch."

But some areas lack the necessary police resources to conduct background checks on all Neighborhood Watch volunteers, because they are strapped for cash, Caldwell continued. Another pitfall is that Neighborhood Watch training does not involve any psychological evaluation.

Yet, Tutko believes that if Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions of him. "If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

Zimmerman also called himself the "captain" of his neighborhood watch leading many to question whether it is some sort of militaristic organization, which might have emboldened Martin's killer to use violence. "When you say 'block captain'? To me that's an administrative person, someone who puts together schedules," Tutko clarified. "But certainly you're not the person in charge, and no one will be following orders from this person."

All of these factors point to the benefits of registering Neighborhood Watch groups, who receive training, vetting, and work intimately with police. "It comes down to [knowing] the person that's out there. If you're not partnering with a law enforcement agency, who vets these people? How do we know? We could be sitting talking in a meeting, talking about going on vacation, and our alarms and locks, and the person in the meeting, who is a member of the neighborhood watch, could be the person who is going to break into your house — and we don't know that," Tutko warned.

The tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of someone who claimed to be a Neighborhood Watch captain will not alter the structure of the organization. Yet, "Our condolences go out to the family, because this was not necessary," Tutko said of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

"The only change will be to use this as an example of what not to do," he confirmed.

"Neighborhood Watch — the way we teach it, and the way it has always been — is based on the premise that we don't carry weapons, nor do we intervene in any incidences," the leader continued. "Because what that does is escalate a situation and makes a volunteer another victim. We'll use this sad event as a bad example, but we won't be changing any literature or protocols."

For Caldwell, Martin's death might strengthen the resolve of Neighborhood Watch volunteers to do good.

"Does this put a blemish on Neighborhood Watch? At first I thought it might," Caldwell concluded. "But the people that are truly trained, that are part of Neighborhood Watch, know that this is more the exception to the rule, than anything else," she said of Martin's shooting.

"And they know what the right program is, and what the wrong program is. This has made people stronger and more determined that they get people involved in the right way. They want to reinforce the philosophy of Neighborhood Watch."

Quote from: "wolf39us"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "wolf39us"Under fla 784.048, stalking would require repeats and would not include someone following another person especially in terms of legitimate purpose (crime watch)

"Legitimate purpose" ended the moment the police dispatcher told him to stop following.

Maybe in principal, but in practice -- the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.  Zimmerman would have to claim law enforcement knowledge superior to that of the people in the communications center to use the "no legal bearing" argument.  A cop can ignore such advice, a civilian (and that's all Zimmerman was) can't.  His being a captain in the neighborhood watch has no legal bearing, since part of the training includes the fact that when the dispatcher tells you to break off, you immediately (and I stress immediately) do so.  Playing the neighborhood watch card would be a bad move for him if the ADA is on the ball.

[Edit]After reading Jmpty's post, that last part becomes moot, even if it's still true (about Neighborhood Watch in general).

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "wolf39us"the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.

Legal reference, please. I doubt there is any law on the books anywhere that compels, under penalty of law, obeying the instructions of a 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher is not a trained police officer, nor are they on the scene or know everything that is going on - all they know is what the person on the line is saying.

Combine this with the fact that he was told something to the effect "you don't need to follow him"; this is not an imperative. To point, the dispatcher did NOT say "stop following him immediately".

So, even if there was a legal obligation to obey the instructions of a 911 dispatcher (which there is not, AFAIK), he wasn't issued a direct instruction. Based on these two points, the entire 911 operator thing is a complete red herring and is not relevant to the assessment of guilt or innocence in this case.

PS: I am also opposed to the "scatter-shooting" approach that the prosecution used in this case. Child abuse? Really? How about jaywalking and double-parking? This isn't about justice, it's about appeasing the black community.

I agree with sentiment that Zimmerman is mostly at fault because he created the situation. Carrying a gun means you carry all the responsibility that comes with it and you need to hold yourself to a higher than normal standard of personal discipline. Zimmerman didn't do that, he created a confrontation which is exactly what you're not supposed to do when armed and because of that, the worst case scenario happened and a young boy is dead. Zimmerman created the confrontation and thus I hold him mostly responsible, if he's not going to face jail time then at least strip him of his carry permit because he obviously isn't smart enough and responsible enough to possess it.

I disagree

Zimmerman has a constitutional right to bear arms
Zimmerman had a right to protect himself from great bodily injury/death
Zimmerman was not committing any crime by following Trayvon
Trayvon did NOT have a right to assault someone except to defend himself

If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

Without evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon initally and with ill-will/intention I would say that the man is innocent.  Furthermore, do you think that fat ass can outrun the lean, muscular 17 year old?  I think NOT :-)

Quote from: "wolf39us"If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

And what if Zimmerman provoked that attack? What then? He knew he had a loaded gun to protect himself with if things got out of hand. He also knew he had the stand your ground law on his side if he needed to use that gun. So is he still innocent if he provoked the kid into attacking him in that situation?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "wolf39us"If Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin, then the aggressor becomes the at-fault party and all the above applies.

And what if Zimmerman provoked that attack? What then? He knew he had a loaded gun to protect himself with if things got out of hand. He also knew he had the stand your ground law on his side if he needed to use that gun. So is he still innocent if he provoked the kid into attacking him in that situation?

Provoked in what way?  Why would anyone call the police asking for help and then basically provoke an attack?  Also, provoke is incredibly subjective... what you think of "provoke" could be VASTLY different than someone else's definition.

If you mean to say that to follow = provoke, then yes he is innocent.  What kind of "provoke" are we talking about here?

Quote from: "wolf39us"What kind of "provoke" are we talking about here?

I dunno. Pick one. I'm not asking for what's plausible or for what might have happened here. I'm asking if one person has intent to make a second person feel threatened and then makes that second person feel threatened such that they attack for fear of their own well being, is that first person then within the letter of the law to use lethal force in self defense and still be found innocent? That is all I'm asking here. Forget Martin. Forget Zimmerman. We're talking about two hypothetical people who don't exist.

The first person doesn't throw a punch. But he makes the second person feel that his life in danger if action is not taken immediately. That second person could run. But suppose he feels he would not be able to outrun the first person. So the second person feels backed into a corner where his only option is to try to get the first punch in and keep getting punches in until the first person no longer poses a threat. Its either attack and try to subdue the first person or die as far as the second person knows. And he believes this to be true because the first person has made him believe it to be true.

In that scenario, is the first person then justified legally speaking, to use lethal force on the second in self defense? Keep in mind the second person never would have attacked the first if the first had not made the second feel threatened. Keep in mind, the first did not accidentally make the second person feel threatened. It was his intent to make the second person feel threatened.

Is it still ok to use lethal force against the second person in the scenario? Not Martin, not Zimmerman. Hypothetical people who don't exist.

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "wolf39us"the dispatcher's instruction has no legal bearing.

They do in court.

Legal reference, please.

To the fact that the ADA can call Zimmerman's failure to break off "stalking"?  "In court" includes things other than de jure.

QuoteThe dispatcher is not a trained police officer

I don't know how the particular jurisdiction works, so I can't address that comment.  In some jurisdictions, dispatchers are experienced law enforcement officers.  In some they're barely trained civilians.  But even barely trained is more training than Zimmerman had, a point the ADA can make in court.

Quotenor are they on the scene or know everything that is going on

"Don't try to act like a cop" doesn't require being on scene, it's common sense to anyone who's trained.  And that's my problem with stand your ground laws - you should report what you see, not try to take action.  Even off-duty police officers sometimes just call it in and wait in the shadows for backup.  You act if someone's safety is in immediate danger, you don't act if there's a suspicious person walking down the street.  Even an on-duty cop in uniform wouldn't do more than ask for identification, to let the person know that their identity is now known.

QuoteCombine this with the fact that he was told something to the effect "you don't need to follow him"

Was he?  Or was he told to stop following him?  I didn't listen to the transcripts.

QuoteTo point, the dispatcher did NOT say "stop following him immediately".

"We have the location, you don't need to follow him" is just as good.  (It's what I've said more than once, and it's understood to mean "stop following him".)

QuoteSo, even if there was a legal obligation to obey the instructions of a 911 dispatcher (which there is not, AFAIK), he wasn't issued a direct instruction. Based on these two points, the entire 911 operator thing is a complete red herring and is not relevant to the assessment of guilt or innocence in this case.

Due to stand your ground, there was no legal obligation for Zimmerman to not follow Martin, even if his following posed a threat to Martin (in Martin's mind, which is the only one that matters here).  If Martin felt threatened he was acting in self-defense, blowing Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.  (Of course we can never know, thanks to Zimmerman taking lethal action in response to non-lethal action - which is almost always wrong.)

QuotePS: I am also opposed to the "scatter-shooting" approach that the prosecution used in this case. Child abuse? Really? How about jaywalking and double-parking? This isn't about justice, it's about appeasing the black community.

No, it's about getting a guilty verdict.  As long as it's not illegal, inadmissible or prejudicial, the ADA can use it.  Zimmerman wet the bed when he was 7?  If the ADA could show a connection between that and murder, he's free to bring it up.  Just as the defense is free to bring up the fact that the ADA is prejudiced against Hispanics with German surnames, if they can find evidence to back up the claim.  Or that some kid named Zimmerman bullied the ADA when he was a kid.  It's all fair game.  That's how the legal system works in the US.

Quote from: "wolf39us"I disagree

Zimmerman has a constitutional right to bear arms

And the responsibility to not use them illegally.

QuoteZimmerman had a right to protect himself from great bodily injury/death

Not if he caused the situation that endangered his life.

QuoteZimmerman was not committing any crime by following Trayvon

That's what the trial is supposed to determine.

QuoteTrayvon did NOT have a right to assault someone except to defend himself

And, if in HIS mind, Zimmerman posed an immediate threat, that's exactly what he did.

QuoteIf Zimmerman did NOT initially attack Martin

Have you ever been a black male teen-ager in the south?  There's more than enough precedent for a black male teen-ager in the south to consider that a white male adult following him at night is an immediate threat to his life.

QuoteWithout evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon initally and with ill-will/intention I would say that the man is innocent.

The principle of "the reasonable man" applies here.  Would a reasonable male black teen-ager  in this situation have seen Zimmerman as an immediate threat?  If yes, then Zimmerman is guilty of at least provoking an attack (which would make the death manslaughter).  If not it's death by misadventure (the deceased did something stupid that led to his death).

QuoteFurthermore, do you think that fat ass can outrun the lean, muscular 17 year old?  I think NOT :-)

He didn't have to, only his bullet did.

Quote from: "wolf39us"Why would anyone call the police asking for help and then basically provoke an attack?

To set himself up as a victim, for when he shot the person he was following.

QuoteAlso, provoke is incredibly subjective

And only the mind of the 'provokee' matters.  If Martin reasonably thought he was in danger, he had the right to defend himself.  The fact (if it actually is a fact) that Zimmerman didn't intend to provoke or appear to be a threat is irrelevant.  (And asserting it in court would be incompetent without a recording of Martin's thoughts.)

Quote from: "Colanth"To set himself up as a victim, for when he shot the person he was following.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

What there is evidence of is a struggle. Forensic experts in the trial determined that the weapon was about 4 millimeters from Martin's chest when it was discharged. Further, the shell casing from that shot was not ejected. The casing ejection is an automatic function of a magazine fed pistol. If it was not automatically ejected that means someone was holding the slide. Since there is no reason at all for Zimmerman to be holding the slide, that leaves Martin. If Martin was holding the slide then that strongly indicates a struggle for the gun. If there was a struggle for the gun then it is exceedingly likely that Martin took Zimmerman by surprise, and was the initiator of physical violence.

The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is. I think many people generally agree with this rather basic philosophy but in the case of some posters on this forum there is a strong desire to ignore it. Thats why many of the posts Ive seen here talk about whether or not Martin felt threatened. Right of the bat I would like to say that on a purely evidence level there is nothing to prove this suggestion.

The idea that Martin reacted to a perceived threat by attacking Zimmerman is an assumption.

I can understand feeling uneasy with someone who is following you down the street at night. That much I can easily understand. But Martin's reaction is completely contrary to sensibility. If you are afraid of someone who is following you, you try to get away from them. Initiating a physical altercation with someone who makes you feel like you are in danger makes no sense unless you literally have no other choice. Martin is a 17 year old. There's no way he can't simply run away from the older, heavier Zimmerman and lose him in a matter of seconds. And yet he decides that jumping him is the best course of action? Why?

Many people have suggested that Zimmerman is at fault because if he hadn't decided to follow Martin then none of this would have happened. In the same vein, I suggest that if Martin hadn't decided to attack Zimmerman, a move that I simply do not understand, then Martin would still be alive today.

I can only presume that Martin had no idea that Zimmerman had a weapon, an assumption reinforced by the fact that Zimmerman was essentially required to carry it concealed. Its the only way I can make sense of his decision to attack Zimmerman. However, if he didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, then the idea that Martin felt threatened by him is undercut.

I think it is very hard to justify any guilty verdict under these circumstances. The series of events cannot even be established with a certainty, and yet there are people chomping at the bit to see him in prison for the rest of his life. The idea that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is absurd to my mind. The evidence of premeditation is flimsy. The argument that Zimmerman is somehow guilty for following him down a public street is a terrifying concept, as it implies guilt can be applied for an action that was not in fact illegal. More problematically it implies that people are responsible for being assaulted if the perception of the assaulter is that they were being followed. This opens up a legal pandora's box wherein guilt is determined by the perpetrator and the victim is forced to prove their innocence.

QuoteThe way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteThe way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

I don't know if this has occurred to you, but from a legal standpoint there is literally no difference between suggesting that Zimmerman is the instigator for following Martin down a public street and suggesting Martin is the instigator for being in that neighborhood. Neither act is illegal. The "situation" didn't exist until someone broke the law. Until Martin attacked Zimmerman there were countless ways an altercation could have been avoided. Instead of choosing one of them he chose to do the one thing that would escalate this (until that point) rather boring scenario into something deadly.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteThe way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.

That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.

People have the right to talk to other people without it escalating into violence. Just because I walk up and initiate a conversation with you doesn't give you the right to beat my ass, regardless of how much you dislike my words. And just because I would not have gotten beat up had I never talked to you, that doesn't mean it's all my fault.

Furthermore - and this will no doubt be an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe it - if Martin had been 30yo white guy who got shot while beating the hell out of the neighborhood watch captain, this shit would have never even made the fucking news. But since he was a 17yo black kid, everyone is in a fucking race to crucify Zimmer in order to prove that they are more racially sensitive than everyone else. All this in spite of the fact, that by all available evidence, Martin was the one who assaulted Zimmerman.

It's fucking bullshit. The prosecution knows it's bullshit, which is why they tried to shotgun the charges the jury could consider. They know they can't prove their fucking case, but that doesn't matter - they need to convict Zimmerman of SOMETHING to satisfy the court of public opinion. They'd rather sacrifice Zimmerman rather than risk blacks rioting in the streets.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[
I can understand feeling uneasy with someone who is following you down the street at night. That much I can easily understand. But Martin's reaction is completely contrary to sensibility. If you are afraid of someone who is following you, you try to get away from them. Initiating a physical altercation with someone who makes you feel like you are in danger makes no sense unless you literally have no other choice. Martin is a 17 year old. There's no way he can't simply run away from the older, heavier Zimmerman and lose him in a matter of seconds. And yet he decides that jumping him is the best course of action? Why?

Zimmerman had a vehicle. Pretty tough to out run a car on foot. Plus, Florida has a stand your ground law precisely so you don't have to run away when someone is presenting a threat to your safety.

I just love how some people are saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman as if it were a fact. I guess they were there and saw the whole thing.

Not guilty

Zimmerman found not guilty.

It's not surprising but I'm still disappointed.

Let us hope that some form of justice is served in a civil court case.

Quote from: "stromboli"Zimmerman found not guilty.

Can't say I didn't see this coming, but he may very well get nailed in the civil suit simply because the burden of proof there is much lower.. The criminal standard is that the jury must find him guilty "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt." That wasn't even remotely met in this case because of conflicting witnesses. As morally guilty as I'm sure he is, Zimmerman was rightfully exonerated in a legal sense.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[
I can understand feeling uneasy with someone who is following you down the street at night. That much I can easily understand. But Martin's reaction is completely contrary to sensibility. If you are afraid of someone who is following you, you try to get away from them. Initiating a physical altercation with someone who makes you feel like you are in danger makes no sense unless you literally have no other choice. Martin is a 17 year old. There's no way he can't simply run away from the older, heavier Zimmerman and lose him in a matter of seconds. And yet he decides that jumping him is the best course of action? Why?

Zimmerman had a vehicle. Pretty tough to out run a car on foot. Plus, Florida has a stand your ground law precisely so you don't have to run away when someone is presenting a threat to your safety.

This.

QuoteShiranu wrote:
Quote:
The way I see it, if Martin initiated an assault then he is responsible for the outcome of the altercation no matter what that outcome is.


That would be nice if he was the instigator of the situation.


People have the right to talk to other people without it escalating into violence. Just because I walk up and initiate a conversation with you doesn't give you the right to beat my ass, regardless of how much you dislike my words. And just because I would not have gotten beat up had I never talked to you, that doesn't mean it's all my fault.

Furthermore - and this will no doubt be an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe it - if Martin had been 30yo white guy who got shot while beating the hell out of the neighborhood watch captain,

How many fucking times is it going to have to be pointed out he is neither neighbourhood watch NOR upholding their rules?

There were apparently discrepancies in the discovery process
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 6704.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-whistleblower-fired-20130713,0,2426704.story)

QuoteThe special prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case has fired her information technology director, who last month testified that he found evidence on Trayvon Martin's cell phone that Zimmerman's lawyers say the state never turned over, according to a Jacksonville.com report.

According to the report, Ben Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey's office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office."

Kruidbos testified last month that he found embarrassing photos found on Trayvon's cellphone, including pictures of a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semiautomatic pistol. Defense attorneys allege that data wasn't turned over to them as part of the evidence exchange process, known as discovery.

along with weak prosecution. Trayvon Martin was no angel.

QuoteTrayvon Martin was no angel

Irrelevant in the court of law.

I wish George Zimmerman many sleepless nights.

Hope he kicks their ass in the civil suit too.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteTrayvon Martin was no angel

Irrelevant in the court of law.

And even if it were the case, being something other than an angel doesn't give people free reign to provoke you and then use deadly force when they bite off more than they can chew. And whether GZ had legit self defense claims doesn't really matter to me, he very well may have, but he still created that scenario knowing full well what might happen.

It's like walking into a bar, calling some guy's mom a slut, he takes you outside and beats your ass, and you start to fear for your life and you shoot him dead. You very well may have acted in self defense but you created that shitty situation while armed with a gun and knowing that such an outcome could occur. This is why I would've liked him to go down on manslaughter or some form of negligence charge.

George Zimmerman acted about as irresponsibly as a CCWer can act and the worst possible scenario occurred because of it. You're not supposed to go looking for trouble when you carry a gun, it's there so you can react to trouble when it finds you.

QuoteFurthermore - and this will no doubt be an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe it - if Martin had been 30yo white guy who got shot while beating the hell out of the neighborhood watch captain, this shit would have never even made the fucking news. But since he was a 17yo black kid, everyone is in a fucking race to crucify Zimmer in order to prove that they are more racially sensitive than everyone else. All this in spite of the fact, that by all available evidence, Martin was the one who assaulted Zimmerman.

Also, Zimmerman was the "good guy" on practically every news outlet, so...

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteTrayvon Martin was no angel

Irrelevant in the court of law.

And even if it were the case, being something other than an angel doesn't give people free reign to provoke you and then use deadly force when they bite off more than they can chew. And whether GZ had legit self defense claims doesn't really matter to me, he very well may have, but he still created that scenario knowing full well what might happen.

It's like walking into a bar, calling some guy's mom a slut, he takes you outside and beats your ass, and you start to fear for your life and you shoot him dead. You very well may have acted in self defense but you created that shitty situation while armed with a gun and knowing that such an outcome could occur. This is why I would've liked him to go down on manslaughter or some form of negligence charge.

George Zimmerman acted about as irresponsibly as a CCWer can act and the worst possible scenario occurred because of it. You're not supposed to go looking for trouble when you carry a gun, it's there so you can react to trouble when it finds you.

Really?

REALLY?

Am I the only one who is concerned with how exceptionally easy it is to create these situations by your definition? Not only is doing something legal like walking on a public street now a damning act, but just insulting someone is now justification to have your ass beaten and dont you dare defend yourself because you were mean first?

How about this? The guy who initiates physical violence is responsible. For EVERYTHING. Until a punch is thrown, everything is fine. The person who decides to resort to violence takes responsibility for all of it because he is the one who converted being followed down the street into pounding someones head into the concrete. HE did it. HE is responsible. The choice to not do that was ALL HIS. HE chose this and he is responsible for the outcome.

QuoteHow about this? The guy who initiates physical violence is responsible. For EVERYTHING. Until a punch is thrown, everything is fine.

Nah, i'm good. Thank's though. I believe people have responsibility for their actions.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteFurthermore - and this will no doubt be an unpopular opinion, but I firmly believe it - if Martin had been 30yo white guy who got shot while beating the hell out of the neighborhood watch captain, this shit would have never even made the fucking news. But since he was a 17yo black kid, everyone is in a fucking race to crucify Zimmer in order to prove that they are more racially sensitive than everyone else. All this in spite of the fact, that by all available evidence, Martin was the one who assaulted Zimmerman.

Also, Zimmerman was the "good guy" on practically every news outlet, so...

One of the people I live with has a sick addiction to CNN propaganda. As a result I was subjected to every last bit of CNN coverage of the Zimmerman case. They started out a couple years ago claiming Zimmerman was a white supremacist and Martin was a 14 year old buying skittles, and frankly they deviated very little from that basic premise from that time all the way to today. CNN commentary on Zimmerman consisted of a loud, extremely angry black woman yelling as loud as she can at two mild white guys about racial injustice while the host cheers her on.

So no, not every news outlet painted him as a hero. I imagine the usual ideological divides in news sources remained true for this case as they do in all other social issues.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteHow about this? The guy who initiates physical violence is responsible. For EVERYTHING. Until a punch is thrown, everything is fine.

Nah, i'm good. Thank's though. I believe people have responsibility for their actions.

You completely excuse Martin for starting violence, so no you don't.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteHow about this? The guy who initiates physical violence is responsible. For EVERYTHING. Until a punch is thrown, everything is fine.

Nah, i'm good. Thank's though. I believe people have responsibility for their actions.

You completely excuse Martin for starting violence, so no you don't.

Oh, I'm sorry... where did I do that?

Go ahead, quote me on it. Infact, go back to other threads and quote me on that.

Oh wait, you cant.

Infact, from the beginning I have been saying, "IF MARTIN STARTED THE PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION, HE SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY (IF HE WASN'T DEAD, SO HE WILL NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO PRESENT HIS STORY) OF ASSAULT"

However there is something called excessive force and escalation, and that is what it seems Zimmerman did, in a situation in which he KNEW he had the upper hand, he STARTED by disobeying both police orders and neighbourhood watch protocol, and he KILLED a teenager who he had no business stalking in the first place.

Just because one party committed a crime doesn't mean the other didn't. And don't come in here telling me what I did and did say when you apparently don't know jack shit about my position.

Oh please cut the fucking bullshit Shiranu. There were no police orders as the 911 lady wasnt a police officer and never issued an order regardless. Neighborhood watch protocol isnt legally binding. HE defended himself from a teenager who was pounding his skull into the pavement.

Your warped take on events tells me everything I need to know about your "position". That crap about Martin being guilty of assault is just lip service to make people reading your schlock think you have some measure of sanity on this issue. Its an easy thing to concede since Martin can't be charged with that crime.

You gotta try hard. I mean really really really hard to see it the way you see it. You gotta want it really bad.
I am sorry but you have not been objective here. Not at all.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"The person who decides to resort to violence takes responsibility for all of it because he is the one who converted being followed down the street into pounding someones head into the concrete. HE did it. HE is responsible. The choice to not do that was ALL HIS. HE chose this and he is responsible for the outcome.

You mean "grass" not "concrete". Zimmerman said that his head was being pounded into concrete, but this was disproven by physical evidence and eye witness testimony. He lied. You should have tried paying attention to the case, testimony, and evidence instead of believing a disproven story.

The only evidence that TM initiated the violence is GZ's story, and his story is disproven by its own internal contradictions, simple physics, and every piece of physical evidence and witness testimony. If you believe it was possible for TM to see and try to grab GZ's gun while TM's knees are in GZ's armpits, you are a fool, and if you believe that the shell casing not ejecting is evidence that TM grabbed the gun in the holster instead of after GZ drew it, you are simply delusional.

You have to be very gullible, very biased, and very ignorant of the facts to believe GZ's story. Sadly, the jury was just as gullible and biased. Hopefully some justice can be done in a civil trial.

I believe people have the right to defend themselves, but when their self defense story is disproven, you can't use "I was defending myself" as a magic phrase to get out of murder.

If GZ's self defense story was true it wouldn't have changed several times as new evidence came out and it wouldn't be full of internal contradictions that make it literally impossible.

Edit: Fuck it, you have your little victory.

Congratulations America, you have continued the fine tradition of letting murderers go scott free. Hope you are oh so damn proud of yourselves.

I'd like to clarify my position from an earlier post in response to Sensei's response to it. I've considered it further and I do feel like your point, sensei, is a valid one. I don't think you should be held legally responsible if someone you're a jerkoff too gets violent and you wind up having to use deadly force to stop them, although I do still believe that such an occurrence demonstrates gross irresponsibility on the part of the shooter as well that it is both unethical and immoral to commit the acts I detailed.

I do, however, feel that the entirety of my previous post that you took issue with is perfectly valid if you substitute being a jerk with acting in a confrontational or threatening manner that may cause someone to fear for their own well being which is what I think George Zimmerman did that night.

It's a muddy issue and there's a lot of different ways to look at and a lot of different opinions that make sense.

Florida isn't America. It's the fetid severed penis of Spain that we tied to our underbelly with twine and gumption.

The fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference. I will have to remember that next time I am in the court of law; lie through my teeth and hope I get caught.

After all of this I have to say: isn't it wonderful, just fucking wonderful that the media plasters your face and name all over the place if you're even accused of a crime. That way you're pretty likely to get murdered regardless of the verdict. I mean, say what you will about the verdict, but now this man has to go into hiding and become a recluse even though the jury found him innocent. He wasn't convicted and sent to prison, but he's still going to be a prisoner in his own house.

I hope he doesn't get killed, but I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that a murderer will have to look over his shoulder.

our justice system doesn't work on "He probably is guilty, so send him to jail"
the prosecution couldn't prove he is guilty of starting the fight nor that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.


peoples reaction to juries scare me. They watch news about somebody accused of something (Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, the lacrosse boys, etc) and get pissed when juries don't find enough evidence to convict and let the accused go.


I'm glad we have a system where guilt isn't presumed.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"After all of this I have to say: isn't it wonderful, just fucking wonderful that the media plasters your face and name all over the place if you're even accused of a crime. That way you're pretty likely to get murdered regardless of the verdict. I mean, say what you will about the verdict, but now this man has to go into hiding and become a recluse even though the jury found him innocent. He wasn't convicted and sent to prison, but he's still going to be a prisoner in his own house.

BINGO!

I absolutely abhor trial by media in all its forms. it should be banned.

Quote from: "Shiranu"How many fucking times is it going to have to be pointed out he is neither neighbourhood watch NOR upholding their rules?

You can point it out until you are blue in face if you want, but no matter how many times you or anyone assert that Zimmerman was not a member of a neighborhood watch it does not change the fact that he was.

In August 2012 George Zimmerman contacted officer Wendy Dorival of the Sanford, FL. Police department to find out about setting up a neighborhood watch program for the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community in response to a series of burglaries in the neighborhood. She setup a meeting for the following month. About 25 people from the community attended the meeting with officer Dorival. They appointed George Zimmerman as their coordinator. The Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program was recognized by and coordinated with the local police department and George Zimmerman was its leader.

Your right, I love our jury system...

Kid caught doing something that harms no one other than himself? Send him to jail for 10 years and destroy his life.
Grown ass man picks a fight, realizes he is getting his ass kicked and escalates the situation? LOL HOW DARE YOU JUDGE HIM!?!?

Oh America, I love your justice system so.

Edit: Ah, he was let go by them after the murder.

So, he was a Neighbourhood Watch captain who went completely contrary to NW protocol. Damn, that is a great argument in his favour then. I actually like that better, its even more embarrassing to see that used as an argument for him.

Quote from: "Shiranu"The fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference. I will have to remember that next time I am in the court of law; lie through my teeth and hope I get caught.

That would be difficult considering Zimmerman never spoke to the jury.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Shiranu"The fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference. I will have to remember that next time I am in the court of law; lie through my teeth and hope I get caught.

That would be difficult considering Zimmerman never spoke to the jury.

He lied to the court, my bad. Because the jury has no idea what happens in the court...

Now I am just waiting to see Hernandez walk... that would be the perfect icing on the cake. But don't worry, the justice system ain't broke!

Quote from: "Shiranu"I hope he doesn't get killed, but I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that a murderer will have to look over his shoulder.

Let me rephrase that for you: I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that someone accused of something then acquitted of all charges will have to look over his shoulder.

If character assassination is okay with Martin, then lets do some with Zimmerman as well. He is alive, so he can at least defend himself.

QuoteIt turned out this wasn't Zimmerman's first run-in with the law. He had previously been accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend, and he had also previously been ARRESTED for ASSAULTING a police officer. More controversially, in July 2012, an evidence dump related to the investigation of Martin's death revealed that a younger female cousin of Zimmerman's had accused him of NEARLY TWO DECADES of SEXUAL MOLESTATION and ASSAULT. In addition, she had accused members of Zimmerman's family, including his Peruvian-born mother, of being proudly racist against African Americans, and recalled a number of examples of perceived bigotry.

Poor Saint Zimmerman.

Quoteet me rephrase hat for you: I am not going to lose any sleep over the fact that someone accused of something then acquitted of all charges will have to look over his shoulder.

He was found not guilty, but he was not found "not innocent".

But Saint Zimmerman can not be a violent man with a history of violence, it was all that damned Demonica Martin that did it!

Quote from: "Shiranu"Your right, I love our jury system...

Kid caught doing something that harms no one other than himself? Send him to jail for 10 years and destroy his life.
Grown ass man picks a fight, realizes he is getting his ass kicked and escalates the situation? LOL HOW DARE YOU JUDGE HIM!?!?

Oh America, I love your justice system so.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time dealing with the people who are yelling about Zimmerman "defending" himself after instigating a confrontation. "Self defense!! Blarg!!"

Um....he was told not to follow Trayvon after calling 911 by an operator, and he did anyway. And when Trayvon freaked out and lashed out (which I would have done, as well....oh, but he wasn't a little white woman, was he?), Zimmerman shot him dead. And apparently that's "self defense".

*Throws hands up*

Quote from: "Shiranu"He was found not guilty, but he was not found "not innocent".

But Saint Zimmerman can not be a violent man with a history of violence, it was all that damned Demonica Martin that did it!

What the fuck does "he was not found 'not innocent'." even mean? And what bearing does that second part even have on what I said?

How about I just ask a simple question: do you find it OK that a man acquitted of the charges against him has to go into hiding and essentially become a hermit because the media deemed him guilty before he was even put on trial?

Here's a bigger question. what proof is there that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon and thus started the fight?

Zimmerman is the one with pictures of a beat up head.
you can't convict somebody because you are sure he did it.

nor can you assume because he is guilty of one crime, he is guilty of another. (IOW following the kid is not proof he attacked the kid)

QuoteWhat the fuck does "he was not found 'not innocent'." even mean? And what bearing does that second part even have on what I said?

Sorry, worded that slightly wrong.

Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean he was found innocent. There is a difference between being found "not guilty" and being found "innocent". Innocent would mean his name would be cleared, not guilty just means you got lucky.

QuoteHere's a bigger question. what proof is there that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon and thus started the fight?

No one said he did.

Quote(IOW following the kid is not proof he attacked the kid)

No one is saying it is.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Shiranu"The fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference. I will have to remember that next time I am in the court of law; lie through my teeth and hope I get caught.

That would be difficult considering Zimmerman never spoke to the jury.

He lied to the court, my bad. Because the jury has no idea what happens in the court...

I haven't followed the trial all that closely, but I would be very surprised if Zimmerman has addressed the court since he plead not guilty at his arraignment. So I'm curious as to what lies he told the court, and what evidence you have that shows they were lies? Or is this just another baseless assertion you made up because you don't like the way things turned out?

Quote from: "Shiranu"Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean he was found innocent. There is a difference between being found "not guilty" and being found "innocent". Innocent would mean his name would be cleared, not guilty just means you got lucky.

In the US there are only two verdicts available to a jury in a criminal law case. Those verdicts are guilty and not guilty. Being declared innocent by a jury is not an option.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteWhat the fuck does "he was not found 'not innocent'." even mean? And what bearing does that second part even have on what I said?

Sorry, worded that slightly wrong.

Just because he wasn't found guilty doesn't mean he was found innocent. There is a difference between being found "not guilty" and being found "innocent". Innocent would mean his name would be cleared, not guilty just means you got lucky.

In other news, innocent until proven guilty by a court of law doesn't mean shit anymore!

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"In other news, innocent until proven guilty by a court of law doesn't mean shit anymore!

actually it still means alot and of course, people hate that because they wanted to see Zimmerman get punished because they are sure he's guilty just like the TV said.

Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Here's a bigger question. what proof is there that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon and thus started the fight?

Zimmerman is the one with pictures of a beat up head.
you can't convict somebody because you are sure he did it.

nor can you assume because he is guilty of one crime, he is guilty of another. (IOW following the kid is not proof he attacked the kid)

Well, let's put it this way. Say little ol' me is being followed by some weirdo. I'm getting freaked out. I'm scared and throw punches. Weirdo shoots me even though I have brandished no weapons. It could be argued that I was acting in self-defense because someone was stalking me. And yes, I know the fear of being followed by creepy people. It can be terrifying.

Doesn't really matter who threw the first punch. Who instigated the confrontation?

If I follow a someone around all night and freak them out, I'm not innocent of all wrongdoing. The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman instigated this entire confrontation....he made the meeting between him and Martin possible, even after he was told not to follow him. He made a handful of decisions that ultimately led to the death of a person.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"

Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Here's a bigger question. what proof is there that Zimmerman attacked Treyvon and thus started the fight?

Zimmerman is the one with pictures of a beat up head.
you can't convict somebody because you are sure he did it.

nor can you assume because he is guilty of one crime, he is guilty of another. (IOW following the kid is not proof he attacked the kid)

Well, let's put it this way. Say little ol' me is being followed by some weirdo. I'm getting freaked out. I'm scared and throw punches. Weirdo shoots me even though I have brandished no weapons. It could be argued that I was acting in self-defense because someone was stalking me. And yes, I know the fear of being followed by creepy people. It can be terrifying.

Doesn't really matter who threw the first punch. Who instigated the confrontation?

yes. Treyvon could have called the cops himself. He's no more justified attacking Zimmerman "for being creepy" than Zimmerman would be for attacking some creepy hood he thought was a burglar.

QuoteIf I follow a someone around all night and freak them out, I'm not innocent of all wrongdoing.

agreed. but that doesn't mean Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

QuoteThe fact of the matter is that Zimmerman instigated this entire confrontation....he made the meeting between him and Martin possible, even after he was told not to follow him. He made a handful of decisions that ultimately led to the death of a person.

I agree Zimmerman shouldn't have followed the kid. that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder and deserves a 30 year to life prison sentence.

I like how everyone on my fb is a legal analyst now. This thing is exploding all over.

QuoteI haven't followed the trial all that closely, but I would be very surprised if Zimmerman has addressed the court since he plead not guilty at his arraignment. So I'm curious as to what lies he told the court, and what evidence you have that shows they were lies? Or is this just another baseless assertion you made up because you don't like the way things turned out?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/zimmerma ... ys-he-lied (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/zimmerman-back-jail-judge-says-he-lied)

QuoteTrayvon Martin's shooter must return to jail, a judge ordered Friday in a strongly worded ruling that said George Zimmerman and his wife lied to the court about their finances to obtain bond in a case that hinges on jurors believing his account of what happened the night the teen was killed.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimme ... eI0_I3rwtk (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856#.UeI0_I3rwtk)

QuoteA medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

This after he claimed he had his head bashed in 29 times (Which for some reason seems like a very hard number to count to while having your head bashed).

This one is his wife and him, and goes back to the first one...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... erjury.php (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/george_zimmerman_wife_shellie_arrest_perjury.php)

QuoteThe arrest comes less than two weeks after Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. ordered her husband back to jail when investigations revealed the couple had hidden more than $130,000 from authorities back in April.

The money was significant because Shellie Zimmerman and other family members testified at a court hearing that they had little money to pay for George Zimmerman to be released from jail after he was arrested and charged in the killing.

He also changed the story about 8 times, from the videos shown during the trials. So yes, it is like the "other things I pulled out of my ass", aka reality.

QuoteIn the US there are only two verdicts available to a jury in a criminal law case. Those verdicts are guilty and not guilty. Being declared innocent by a jury is not an option.

And? Again, being found "not guilty" does not mean the same as being "innocent", it simply means there wasn't enough evidence that you committed the crime or the jury caved in/were biased.

QuoteIn other news, innocent until proven guilty by a court of law doesn't mean shit anymore!

It doesn't when the court of law is broken, no.

Quoteactually it still means alot and of course, people hate that because they wanted to see Zimmerman get punished because they are sure he's guilty just like the TV said.

Right. Because I need the TV to know that stalking someone and getting into a fight with them so you therefor shoot them is wrong.

Golly jee, glad you were here to tell me that was just the T.V. talking and I don't know fucking jack shit. It's not like people can come to their own conclusions based on available information!

And again, everyone I know and everyone on T.V. went on and on about how Saint Zimmerman was the victim. But I'm sure its just society telling me he was evil... it couldn't possibly be his criminal history and his multiple lying to the court, along with something called common-fucking-sense that stalking people with guns is maybe not the best thing for the law to encourage... nope, it's all good ol' Tele!

Finally if it was Martin who had shot Zimmerman in the exact same situation, he would have been on death row months ago (assuming Florida still has it). And I assume all of you would still be saying, "Rule of law is rule of law!", no? Because when Southern courts find black men guilty and put them on death row, then execute them even after evidence comes out to show them innocent... well, fuck them right? The court said they were guilty, and that's all that matters! And that happens time and time again, but if you want to be consistent then you must agree that situation would be perfectly acceptable.

Just like O.J. Simpson is a standup guy and Casey Anthony is a role model for all women. But the court judged them innocent, so how dare you think otherwise!

It's simple. people are innocent until proven guilty. OJ, Casey, and Zimmerman have been adjudged to be not guilty.

So it boils down to the fact that NONE of us knows what we're talking about unless we're in that jury box. me, and you both only have TV and the news. There's a reason the jury isn't allowed to watch the news.

now the jury heard the case, and if that jury says not guilty then thats the end of it.

if we don't respect that, then any of us could one day be accused of a crime and have to look over our shoulders.

its better that a few guilty people go free, than even one innocent person to be jailed of ruined for life because he was accused of a crime that made the news.

Quoteits better that a few guilty people go free, than even one innocent person to be jailed of ruined for life because he was accused of a crime that made the news.

If we lived in Utopia that might be the case, but as it stands the jury system has a (especially in the South) terrible bias of throwing the innocent in jail and the guilty stay free. The whole reason we had a media spectacle over this is the police were not going to arrest him, and the only thing they had done was check to see if Martin had been drinking. Not the guy who shot the kid; the kid who was laying dead in the street, checking to see if HE was the criminal.

I wish the media would get involved MORE in questionable cases; there have been far too many people put to death row over crimes they didn't commit with questionable AT BEST evidence that we don't hear a thing about till 10, 20 years later. And then you have cases of the town sweetheart committing crimes and not an eye-lash is batted and its swept under the rug(see Steubenville for a great example).

The American "justice" system ruins innocent and those who committed bullshit "crimes" that hurt no one people's lives all the time. The people being aware of what its justice system is doing is, if anything, going to DECREASE the number of innocent people in jail.

Ah yes, because one can always expect the media to report honestly and reasonably when it comes to controversial issues, they never whip people into a frenzy for better ratings.

[youtube:1pkhof0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmwlXtdX_MQ[/youtube:1pkhof0s]

As I said when this thing first went to the prosecution. They fucked up by charging him with shit they would not be able to prove convincingly and as it turns out, they could not. The jury did what it was supposed to do. The prosecution got roped, hogtied and eventually barbecued because it allowed outside influences to merit the charges.

Fail.

crap- please post my thread here.  

my bad
didn't see this thread

Quote from: "aitm"As I said when this thing first went to the prosecution. They fucked up by charging him with shit they would not be able to prove convincingly and as it turns out, they could not. The jury did what it was supposed to do. The prosecution got roped, hogtied and eventually barbecued because it allowed outside influences to merit the charges.

Fail.

I would agree that the prosecution tried to chew more than it could. But even if it had gone for a lesser charge, I doubt it would have made a difference. There isn't very much to go on. Remove the sensationalism, the race card, the issue of guns, the hoody, all the theatrics into this case... It comes down to this: how long would you wait to pull your gun if someone has you nailed to the ground and pounding you, and who knows if he is going to stop?

I'd shoot him and eat his skittles.  :shock:  Solitary

On The Killing Of Trayvon Martin By George Zimmerman



Ta-Nehisi CoatesJul 14 2013, 3:22 AM ET

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to offer some thoughts on the verdict of innocent for George Zimmerman:


1.) Last year--after Zimmerman was arrested--I wrote something hoping that he would be convicted. A commenter wrote in to object, saying that arguing for his arrest was justifiable. Arguing for his conviction was not. I acknowledged the point at the time. The wisdom of it seems even more appropriate today.




2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.




3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out of the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him he "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible.  It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and Zimmerman then shot him.  But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.




4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right--trials don't work as strict "moral surrogates." Everything that is immoral is not illegal--nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished.




5.) I think you should read everything my friend Jelani Cobb has written about this case.




6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.




An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did--buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law and then wait.




7.) Circling back to the first point, it's worth remembering that caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all.  This case was really unique because of what happend with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.

It saddens me as an 18-year old black male, who was involved in the change.org petition when I was a junior in high school, that this verdict was given. I am not going to get into all the reasons why is wrong because I feel it's obvious at this point. What this says to me is that no matter how careful I am to not fill the black stereotype, negative or otherwise, it doesn't matter. It's obvious society doesn't care if I get shot and killed even if I was minding my own business. It's obvious that our society will never open up to the idea that you don't need to carry guns around all the time when other countries that make guns illegal are perfectly fine. If you ever wonder why I get insanely depressed sometimes, well, here at least part of the reason.

Quote from: "Triple Nine"What this says to me is that no matter how careful I am to not fill the black stereotype, negative or otherwise, it doesn't matter. It's obvious society doesn't care if I get shot and killed even if I was minding my own business.

Shit, anyone who's taken a basic sociology course could have told you that. If stereotypes could be broken on an individual basis like that we wouldn't have stereotypes. =/

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Well, let's put it this way. Say little ol' me is being followed by some weirdo. I'm getting freaked out. I'm scared and throw punches. Weirdo shoots me even though I have brandished no weapons. It could be argued that I was acting in self-defense because someone was stalking me. And yes, I know the fear of being followed by creepy people. It can be terrifying.

Yeah sure you could argue it, but from a legal standpoint that argument would be wrong. First of all, the word 'stalking' is once again misapplied since the phrase "intentionally and repeatedly" appears in the legal definition of stalking under Florida law about ten times. Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome. I am surprised at the number of people who feel that an emotional response amounts to legal justification for assault. Since when was being 'freaked out' a good enough reason to preemptively attack someone? Since when would someone who did that not be responsible for everything that happened as a result of that act?

As someone who will probably appear to be following someone else down a street at night sometime in my life, I am concerned that I might be found responsible for my own assault.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"As someone who will probably appear to be following someone else down a street at night sometime in my life, I am concerned that I might be found responsible for my own assault.

are you becoming a cop?

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"As someone who will probably appear to be following someone else down a street at night sometime in my life, I am concerned that I might be found responsible for my own assault.

are you becoming a cop?

wat?

what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

I would dare say the outcome would have been the same if the kid was white...now if zimmy was black and Trayvon (or Travis) was white,,then hoe de phone.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome.

Really? That's great. So the next time I'm in a bar and I tell a girl that I think she's got nice tits and she slaps me, I'll just take out a gun and shoot her in the face. She initiated the violence, she was responsible the outcome. Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

Quote from: "surly74"what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

People are arguing that the mere act of following someone down the street is justification for being assaulted if it "freaks out" the person who is being followed.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome.

Really? That's great. So the next time I'm in a bar and I tell a girl that I think she's got nice tits and she slaps me, I'll just take out a gun and shoot her in the face. She initiated the violence, she was responsible the outcome. Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

 :roll:

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome.

Really? That's great. So the next time I'm in a bar and I tell a girl that I think she's got nice tits and she slaps me, I'll just take out a gun and shoot her in the face. She initiated the violence, she was responsible the outcome. Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

Reductio ad absurdum (//http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes) is unbecoming of you.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome.

Really? That's great. So the next time I'm in a bar and I tell a girl that I think she's got nice tits and she slaps me, I'll just take out a gun and shoot her in the face. She initiated the violence, she was responsible the outcome. Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

No, she didn't put your life in danger, just your silly ego.

 :P

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "surly74"what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

People are arguing that the mere act of following someone down the street is justification for being assaulted if it "freaks out" the person who is being followed.

i guess, i've followed people down the street at night before and it's never ended in death...must be where i live.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "surly74"what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

People are arguing that the mere act of following someone down the street is justification for being assaulted if it "freaks out" the person who is being followed.

i guess, i've followed people down the street at night before and it's never ended in death...must be where i live.

How does your response have anything to do with that I posted?

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "surly74"what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

People are arguing that the mere act of following someone down the street is justification for being assaulted if it "freaks out" the person who is being followed.

You seem to take Zimmermans" story as absolute truth. Why is that?

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "surly74"what circumstances are you going to have this happen to you? are you really that concerned you will be found responsible for your own assault? do you carry a gun?

People are arguing that the mere act of following someone down the street is justification for being assaulted if it "freaks out" the person who is being followed.

You seem to take Zimmermans" story as absolute truth. Why is that?

Nice strawman. No one is taking Zimmerman at his word, but his story does fit the known facts.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Nice strawman. No one is taking Zimmerman at his word, but his story does fit the known facts.

the only known facts are from the person alive...

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Second, if you initiate physical violence, you are responsible for the outcome.

Really? That's great. So the next time I'm in a bar and I tell a girl that I think she's got nice tits and she slaps me, I'll just take out a gun and shoot her in the face. She initiated the violence, she was responsible the outcome. Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

No, she didn't put your life in danger, just your silly ego.

 :P

I agree. But according Nonsensei, she started the physical violence so she should be responsible for the outcome. I'm just going by what was said and pointing out how completely absurd it is.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "surly74"How does your response have anything to do with that I posted?

i'm just saying i'm not afraid to walk down, followed, or following, someone, the street. If i did feel threatened it would be more than the mere act of someone behind me. there would be other things that would make justification in my mind to protect myself.

maybe it's an American thing.

Quote from: "Johan"I agree. But according Nonsensei, she started the physical violence so she should be responsible for the outcome. I'm just going by what was said and pointing out how completely absurd it is.

but Nonsensei doesn't make the laws. Anything can be according to him and not be legal. Your response still has to be comparative to the threat. shooting her in the face isn't appropriate for being slapped in the face...push her off her barstool.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Nice strawman. No one is taking Zimmerman at his word, but his story does fit the known facts.

the only known facts are from the person alive...

Which is why he was convicted based on the physical evidence alone. Oh wait...

Quote from: "Johan"I agree. But according Nonsensei, she started the physical violence so she should be responsible for the outcome. I'm just going by what was said and pointing out how completely absurd it is.

Reductio ad absurdum (//http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes) is not a valid argument.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Nice strawman. No one is taking Zimmerman at his word, but his story does fit the known facts.

the only known facts are from the person alive...

Which is why he was convicted based on the physical evidence alone. Oh wait...

i've never said it was a strong case or that he should have been convicted on poor evidence...

this is why you kill the person, if martin lived it would have been worse for Zimmerman.

Quote from: "surly74"

Quote from: "Johan"I agree. But according Nonsensei, she started the physical violence so she should be responsible for the outcome. I'm just going by what was said and pointing out how completely absurd it is.

but Nonsensei doesn't make the laws. Anything can be according to him and not be legal. Your response still has to be comparative to the threat. shooting her in the face isn't appropriate for being slapped in the face...push her off her barstool.

Ok. But what if I also say that I was in fear of my own life? Does that change anything? I mean I understand that other people might not have been scared in that situation. But for me, it was really scary and I was afraid that if I didn't shoot her, I might end up losing my life. Surely that must change things, no? Plus I think she was reaching for my gun. There is not evidence to support that and I think I might even change my mind about it later. But if I say that I thought she might have been reaching for my gun, doesn't that then give me the right to shoot her?

Quote from: "surly74"i've never said it was a strong case or that he should have been convicted on poor evidence...

Based on the physical evidence and the 9/11 call(or the history you seem to be unaware of)  it is clear that Zimmerman was not following Martin with intent to engage. There had been a series of break-ins in that neighborhood by someone who fit Martin's general description. Every time Zimmerman had called the cops in the past and been told to cease pursuit, they never caught the guy. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher in this case because he was not confident in the ability of the police to respond in time. However, it is clear from this that he was not pursuing with intent to engage; he was staying on the trail to guide the police, and it was Martin who misinterpreted this action. It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging instead of A. running away, B. confronting Zimmerman verbally first, or C. calling the cops himself. (He instead called a friend and immediately attacked Zimmerman while the call was still running. Said friend was one of the prosecution's witnesses.)

Quote from: "surly74"this is why you kill the person, if martin lived it would have been worse for Zimmerman.

Not in criminal court it wouldn't. Again, Zimmerman was clearly not pursuing with intent to engage.

You seem to take Zimmermans" story as absolute truth. Why is that?[/quote]
Nice strawman. No one is taking Zimmerman at his word, but his story does fit the known facts.[/quote]
Maybe you should look up the definition of strawman before opening your mouth. I asked a question. And I didn't ask it of you. What are the "known facts" of which you speak?

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "surly74"i've never said it was a strong case or that he should have been convicted on poor evidence...

Based on the physical evidence and the 9/11 call(or the history you seem to be unaware of)  it is clear that Zimmerman was not following Martin with intent to engage. There had been a series of break-ins in that neighborhood by someone who fit Martin's general description. Every time Zimmerman had called the cops in the past and been told to cease pursuit, they never caught the guy. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher in this case because he was not confident in the ability of the police to respond in time. However, it is clear from this that he was not pursuing with intent to engage; he was staying on the trail to guide the police, and it was Martin who misinterpreted this action. It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging instead of A. running away, B. confronting Zimmerman verbally first, or C. calling the cops himself. (He instead called a friend and immediately attacked Zimmerman while the call was still running. Said friend was one of the prosecution's witnesses.)

Quote from: "surly74"this is why you kill the person, if martin lived it would have been worse for Zimmerman.

Not in criminal court it wouldn't. Again, Zimmerman was clearly not pursuing with intent to engage.

How is this a fact?

Quote from: "Jmpty"Maybe you should look up the definition of strawman before opening your mouth.

You're right, it was actually a loaded question. My apologies for getting my logical fallacies mixed up.

Quote from: "Jmpty"What are the "known facts" of which you speak?

See my last post.

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is this a fact?

That was my conclusion. The facts are immediately before it. You are actually reading what I write before responding, yes?

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging

And you know this is what happened how exactly?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging

And you know this is what happened how exactly?

You're gonna make me hold your hand for this whole discussion, aren't you? (//http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trayvon+martin+phone+call)

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is this a fact?

That was my conclusion. The facts are immediately before it. You are actually reading what I write before responding, yes?

QuoteBased on the physical evidence and the 9/11 call(or the history you seem to be unaware of) it is clear that Zimmerman was not following Martin with intent to engage.

Then why exactly did he get out of his car and approach Martin on foot?

QuoteThere had been a series of break-ins in that neighborhood by someone who fit Martin's general description.

Zimmerman had a criminal history of violence. If we are going to start assuming things about people, then I think this is the FAR more damning piece of evidence.

QuoteEvery time Zimmerman had called the cops in the past and been told to cease pursuit, they never caught the guy.

Absolutely irrelevant, and a terrible excuse.

QuoteZimmerman ignored the dispatcher in this case because he was not confident in the ability of the police to respond in time.

So he became a vigilante and tried to take the law into his hands.

Wow, your fact SUREEEEEEEEE proved Martin was the bad guy...

There was more than just Zimmerman's word---he had head wounds on the back of his head and face that fit what he said happened. The victim was never actually threaten by just being followed. He didn't, as the prosecution proved, that he knew Zimmerman had a gun. He just figured I'll be the punk I am and beat the crap out of him and pond his head into concrete until he's unconscious or dead because I know he is scared and doesn't appear to have a gun so I can do it.

I see from the responses to this that a lot of you have never lived on the streets at night in a crime ridden area. I'm originally from Joliet, south of Chicago, and if you hesitated when feeling threaten you either got the crap beat out of you, stabbed, had a razor cut you, or were killed. Zimmerman didn't know if the perpetrator had a gun or knife hidden or not either.

Just because he followed him by not being streetwise doesn't make him wrong and the perpetrator right in his actions to confront him and slam his head into concrete. It also doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong to use deadly force when he thought his life was in danger.  Why was this considered a race card event anyway?

 He wasn't profiled because he was black, he was profiled because he fit the description of perpetrators that were known to be criminals in the high crime rate area with his hoody and actions. At night it is possible he was not even recognized as being black with a hoody on. All the people here that think Zimmerman was wrong---take a walk on the wild side in the streets of Joliet or Chicago at night. I dare you to!  :roll:  Solitary

Quote from: "Shiranu"Zimmerman had a criminal history of violence. If we are going to start assuming things about people, then I think this is the FAR more damning piece of evidence.

And yet apparently it convinced a jury.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Absolutely irrelevant, and a terrible excuse.

And yet apparently it convinced a jury.

Quote from: "Shiranu"So he became a vigilante and tried to take the law into his hands.

No, he followed a guy to help the police catch him.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Wow, your fact SUREEEEEEEEE proved Martin was the bad guy...

No, I proved that Zimmerman wasn't. You'd have to assume a lot about my views on this to conclude that I think either side was truly at fault here.

You have sarcasm and sensationalism. I have facts. And the facts seem to have convinced the jury that George Zimmerman is, in fact, not guilty. Funny how that works. We're done here.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is this a fact?

That was my conclusion. The facts are immediately before it. You are actually reading what I write before responding, yes?

I've come to the conclusion that people who throw around phrases like "Strawman," and "logical fallacy," in a discussion generally don't know what they are talking about. Another idiot for my foes list.

Quote from: "Solitary"There was more than just Zimmerman's word---he had head wounds on the back of his head and face that fit what he said happened. The victim was never actually threaten by just being followed. He didn't, as the prosecution proved, that he knew Zimmerman had a gun. He just figured I'll be the punk I am and beat the crap out of him and pond his head into concrete until he's unconscious or dead because I know he is scared and doesn't appear to have a gun so I can do it.

I see from the responses to this that a lot of you have never lived on the streets at night in a crime ridden area. I'm originally from Joliet, south of Chicago, and if you hesitated when feeling threaten you either got the crap beat out of you, stabbed, had a razor cut you, or were killed. Zimmerman didn't know if the perpetrator had a gun or knife hidden or not either.

Just because he followed him by not being streetwise doesn't make him wrong and the perpetrator right in his actions to confront him and slam his head into concrete. It also doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong to use deadly force when he thought his life was in danger.  Why was this considered a race card event anyway?

 He wasn't profiled because he was black, he was profiled because he fit the description of perpetrators that were known to be criminals in the high crime rate area with his hoody and actions. At night it is possible he was not even recognized as being black with a hoody on. All the people here that think Zimmerman was wrong---take a walk on the wild side in the streets of Joliet or Chicago at night. I dare you to!  :roll:  Solitary

You have no idea who you are talking to here.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is this a fact?

That was my conclusion. The facts are immediately before it. You are actually reading what I write before responding, yes?

I've come to the conclusion that people who throw around phrases like "Strawman," and "logical fallacy," in a discussion generally don't know what they are talking about.

If that's the best you can come up with then perhaps you should bow out of this debate. Unlike you, I'm making actual points to back up my statements.

QuoteHe just figured I'll be the punk I am and beat the crap out of him and pond his head into concrete until he's unconscious or dead because I know he is scared and doesn't appear to have a gun so I can do it.

I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest, but seriously?

"Don't judge Saint Zimmerman, there isn't enough evidence!"

"Martin was a punk who wanted to beat the crap out of a guy because he KNEW Saint Zimmy was afraid and didn't appear to have a gun!"

You literally just went tenfold past any assumption anyone has made about Saint Zimmerman, and don't realize the sheer hypocrisy?

Tell me, when did Martin say he was a punk who wanted to beat the guy? Tell me, where did you learn Martin KNEW Saint Zimmerman was a scared guy who just got out of his truck and started approaching Martin? Tell me, what evidence shows that Martin KNEW he didn't have a gun?

QuoteNo, he followed a guy to help the police catch him.

So... without police instruction, he took the police's job into his own hand.

Hmmm... what is that called... let me think here... oh damn, its escaping me... give me just a second...

OH YEAH! Vigilantism.

QuoteYou have sarcasm and sensationalism. I have facts.

Oh get the fuck over yourself. If anyone disagrees with you, "LOLLOL NO NO THAT AINT FACT! THAT AINT FACT DOG!", yet anything you say about Saint Zimmerman came directly from the Lord's mouth itself and must therefor be divine fact?

And funny, all of the "facts" you posted above were either sketchy, unrelated to the case or promoted vigilantism.

I personally think this case has little to do with Saint Zimmers and Martin, and more to do with the fact that American's seem to think if you have a gun, you get to make the law and this American notion of vigilantism being "right".

QuoteUnlike you, I'm making actual points to back up my statements.

Yeah, points that are easily refuted because they are either speculation or irrelevant to the case. Damn, I'm impressed.

I've come to the conclusion that people who throw around phrases like "Strawman," and "logical fallacy," in a discussion generally don't know what they are talking about.[/quote]
If that's the best you can come up with then perhaps you should bow out of this debate. Unlike you, I'm making actual points to back up my statements.[/quote]

This is not a debate. It's you spouting opinion as fact. That doesn't actually carry much weight around here.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Oh get the fuck over yourself. If anyone disagrees with you, "LOLLOL NO NO THAT AINT FACT! THAT AINT FACT DOG!", yet anything you say about Saint Zimmerman came directly from the Lord's mouth itself and must therefor be divine fact?

Um, no, if someone disagrees with me I point them toward whatever is causing me to disagree with them. Which I have been doing.

Quote from: "Shiranu"And funny, all of the "facts" you posted above were either sketchy, unrelated to the case or promoted vigilantism.

All of the facts I presented above are what were presented in a court of law to get a man acquitted, so I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by saying this.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I personally think this case has little to do with Saint Zimmers and Martin, and more to do with the fact that American's seem to think if you have a gun, you get to make the law and this American notion of vigilantism being "right".

Cute nicknames and American stereotypes are fun and all, but what does this have to do with the case?

Quote from: "Shiranu"Yeah, points that are easily refuted because they are either speculation or irrelevant to the case. Damn, I'm impressed.

So easily refuted that it got Mr. Zimmerman convic- oh wait, it didn't. #-o

Quote from: "Jmpty"This is not a debate. It's you spouting opinion as fact. That doesn't actually carry much weight around here.

Fortunately I am not guilty of this accusation. I have only used facts presented in the court case, the very facts that persuaded the jury to acquit Zimmerman. If that's still "spouting opinion as fact" then you have an odd view of what an opinion is. :-s

Apparently the "he disregarded the suggestion of the 911 operator argument" wasn't good enough for a court of law nor a jury of 12. So I am bit unsure why some folks here, for some inexplicable reason, think that its still relevant?

The law is not subjective. It doesn't get interpreted one way for some people and a different way for others. And that's the problem - Travon was a black 17yo, so everyone wants a special, subjective interpretation of the law in this case.

QuoteAll of the facts I presented above are what were presented in a court of law to get a man acquitted, so I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by saying this.

And they were extremely sketchy points, hence the reason it was felt the case could go either way. Just because a jury of white southern (Floridan at that) women [and 1 minority] agreed on them doesn't make them therefor the truth.

QuoteCute nicknames and American stereotypes are fun and all, but what does this have to do with the case?

Uh... the fact that he was engaging in vigilantism, and that in being found not guilty it encourages further vigilantism?

QuoteSo easily refuted that it got Mr. Zimmerman convic- oh wait, it didn't.

>MFW you assumed Juries never get things wrong.

//http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/davis-world-reaction

QuoteI have only used facts presented in the court case...

Facts presented by only one side of the argument... the guy who shot the kid. I cant possibly imagine he would have a pro-self bias...

QuoteThe law is not subjective. It doesn't get interpreted one way for some people and a different way for others. And that's the problem - Travon was a black 17yo, so everyone wants a special, subjective interpretation of the law in this case.

Why is it the only people who make a deal out of Martin being black is the pro-Zimmerman crowd, who then claim its everyone else making a deal out of him being black?

And if it makes you feel better, I don't have anything against Zimmerman's defense, what I have a problem with is the prosecution basically making complete asses out of themselves. But justice is not served because one side has a better lawyer than the other, otherwise the Mafia was some of the most outstanding members of society in human history.

QuoteAnd they were extremely sketchy points, hence the reason it was felt the case could go either way. Just because a jury of white southern (Floridan at that) women [and 1 minority] agreed on them doesn't make them therefor the truth.

OK, your arguments are getting progressively more and more ridiculous. Now the whole jury was just stupid?

You want sketchy? Look at the prosecutions case.

QuoteWhy is it the only people who make a deal out of Martin being black is the pro-Zimmerman crowd, who then claim its everyone else making a deal out of him being black?

Oh for fuck's sake. The "racial profiling" card has been played here since day 1.

Quote from: "Seabear"

QuoteAnd they were extremely sketchy points, hence the reason it was felt the case could go either way. Just because a jury of white southern (Floridan at that) women [and 1 minority] agreed on them doesn't make them therefor the truth.

OK, your arguments are getting progressively more and more ridiculous. Now the whole jury was just stupid?

Didn't say stupid.

QuoteYou want sketchy? Look at the prosecutions case.

Already said that. And again, just because someone has better lawyers than you doesn't make them innocent, it just means the law couldn't pin them... unless you want to argue that the Mafia were a bunch of righteous guys who never did anything wrong.

QuoteOh for fuck's sake. The "racial profiling" card has been played here since day 1.

Yeah, and once evidence started to come out that settled down... except from the Pro-Zimmerman crowd.

(//http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1242318/original.jpg)

Ah well, at least yall are in great company at Saint Zimmerman's sacred feet.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging

And you know this is what happened how exactly?

You're gonna make me hold your hand for this whole discussion, aren't you? (//http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trayvon+martin+phone+call)

Well aren't you just the snarky little jerk this morning? I asked for proof, not a google search. If you can provide credible eye witness testimony or other irrefutable evidence such as video or audio recording which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin came out swinging, bring it. If not, STFU.

Quote from: "Shiranu"And they were extremely sketchy points, hence the reason it was felt the case could go either way.

Erm, maybe if you bought into media sensationalism, but no one I've met up in my state really thought they'd serve a guilty verdict. And Washington ain't exactly a conservative state.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Uh... the fact that he was engaging in vigilantism, and that in being found not guilty it encourages further vigilantism?

I live in the same state that generally approves of Phoenix Jones, so again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me here.

Quote from: "Shiranu">MFW you assumed Juries never get things wrong.

//http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/world/davis-world-reaction

I rarely assume anything, and when I do it tends to do with the emotional maturity of CoD babies on Team Fortress 2. A jury of 12 came to the same conclusion as those members of the general public who were content to wait and see what the verdict would be rather than sensationalize the case. That tells me that the sensationalism was exactly that: sensationalism. It tends, for me, to put more weight into the jury's decision. If the jury had ruled Zimmerman to be guilty (probably because of some new evidence), my response would be along the lines of, "I stand corrected." Now if it were a case like Casey Anthony where even those of us content to wait said, "Yeah, she's definitely guilty," then that would be one thing, but this was a pretty open-and-shut case whose resolution was never seriously in question.

Quote from: "Johan"Well aren't you just the snarky little jerk this morning? I asked for proof, not a google search. If you can provide credible eye witness testimony or other irrefutable evidence such as video or audio recording which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin came out swinging, bring it. If not, STFU.

You ignored me not once, but twice when I pointed out how ridiculous your argument on "getting slapped=getting beaten to death" was. Forgive me if that erodes my patience somewhat.

QuoteErm, maybe if you bought into media sensationalism, but no one I've met up in my state really thought they'd serve a guilty verdict. And Washington ain't exactly a conservative state.

I don't know, I guess I just had a fucked up view of what the law should be; that harassment and escalation of violence is not appropriate behaviour.

Silly me for thinking American laws had any sort of sense or protection of citizens to them. I should have known better after case after case after case after case of it proving otherwise.

QuoteI live in the same state that generally approves of Phoenix Jones, so again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me here.

Does he walk around with loaded guns?

But as Saint Zimmerman said, it was all "God's will" and "he wouldn't change a thing about that night.". If defending psychopaths, with violent criminal histories, who take the law into their own hands is your thing... I'm just glad I don't live in any of the states yall do.

The point is, it doesn't matter what you THINK happened, or how you FEEL about it, or if it's FAIR in your opinion. The only thing that matters is what you can PROVE under the law.

QuoteBut as Saint Zimmerman said, it was all "God's will" and "he wouldn't change a thing about that night.". If defending psychopaths, with violent criminal histories, who take the law into their own hands is your thing... I'm just glad I don't live in any of the states yall do.

Good thing hyperbole is free.

Ummm no, that's not hyperbole, actually its the truth. The guy is (FACT) a man with a violent criminal history who (FACT) said it was "God's will" and he "Wouldn't change a thing about that night". I really do not want to live in a state where people like that taking the law into their own hands is considered acceptable behaviour.

QuoteThe point is, it doesn't matter what you THINK happened, or how you FEEL about it, or if it's FAIR in your opinion. The only thing that matters is what you can PROVE under the law.

Meh, what's the point? The law is broke, this is just one more proof of it. The part that depresses me is that people defend broken law, not that he was found "not guilty".

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Based on the physical evidence and the 9/11 call(or the history you seem to be unaware of)  it is clear that Zimmerman was not following Martin with intent to engage. There had been a series of break-ins in that neighborhood by someone who fit Martin's general description. Every time Zimmerman had called the cops in the past and been told to cease pursuit, they never caught the guy. Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher in this case because he was not confident in the ability of the police to respond in time. However, it is clear from this that he was not pursuing with intent to engage; he was staying on the trail to guide the police, and it was Martin who misinterpreted this action. It was also Martin who decided to come out swinging instead of A. running away, B. confronting Zimmerman verbally first, or C. calling the cops himself. (He instead called a friend and immediately attacked Zimmerman while the call was still running. Said friend was one of the prosecution's witnesses.)

so zimmerman ignored the instructions from the police...whatever valid his reasons were according to him he didn't do what the police said to do and a young man is dead because of it.

maybe the police, slow response time and all, knew that following was a bad idea. even without the intent of engaging there was still an altercation because of his actions and the police wanted to prevent this. zimmerman was by himself and didn't have anyone backing him up. a second person may have been able to help zimmerman to the point where no one died.

i agree, it's easy to say martin didn't need to come out swinging but i don't know the mindset of a black teenager in florida. he could have this happen all the time and he is just sick of it. i don't know. I don't hate zimmerman, don't wish him convicted on poor evidence it's just in this case there is nothing to be learned from this. zimmerman did alot of things wrong and a kid is dead.

QuoteNot in criminal court it wouldn't. Again, Zimmerman was clearly not pursuing with intent to engage.

but without a second eye witness there is nothing to potentially refute zimmerman.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Johan"Well aren't you just the snarky little jerk this morning? I asked for proof, not a google search. If you can provide credible eye witness testimony or other irrefutable evidence such as video or audio recording which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin came out swinging, bring it. If not, STFU.

You ignored me not once, but twice when I pointed out how ridiculous your argument on "getting slapped=getting beaten to death" was. Forgive me if that erodes my patience somewhat.

So do you have proof or not?

Quotebut without a second eye witness there is nothing to potentially refute zimmerman.

How dare you say that! Everything in Saint Zimmerman's defense is FACT.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't know, I guess I just had a fucked up view of what the law should be; that harassment and escalation of violence is not appropriate behaviour.

Now who's throwing out opinions? And by opinions, I mean implying that the actions leading up to this confrontation were in any way harassment.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Silly me for thinking American laws had any sort of sense or protection of citizens to them. I should have known better after case after case after case after case of it proving otherwise.

If you have an actual point to make then please make it. I'm not going to claim our justice system is perfect, but just insulting it isn't going to get you very far with me.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Does he walk around with loaded guns?

No, but then again he's not generally going after people he thinks might do him bodily harm. It's also irrelevant.

Quote from: "Shiranu"But as Saint Zimmerman said, it was all "God's will" and "he wouldn't change a thing about that night.". If defending psychopaths, with violent criminal histories, who take the law into their own hands is your thing... I'm just glad I don't live in any of the states yall do.

He could be Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin for all I care. If the facts suggest he's not guilty, then he's not guilty and that's all there is to it. :-|

Since we are stating unsubstantiated opinion as fact, let me share my opinion on what I think happened.

First, a question: we know Martin had a cell phone. Why didn't he call police, if he felt so endangered by that "creepy-ass cracker" following him? The police dispatcher would have told him it was just neighborhood watch; situation defused. Why didn't he call?

Zimmerman called; typically, people with criminal intent don't phone the police and stay on the line with them while they commit their crimes. People who consider themselves to be in the right do, however.

Martin didn't call because he didn't feel threatened, that's why. In fact, we know Martin liked to get into fights, based on text messages the jury wasn't allowed to see. I'm willing to bet he figured he would teach that doughy little cracker a lesson. So, when Zimmerman approached him, he picked a fight with someone whom he perceived as a being weaker than him; he figured he could win, and he liked to fight. So he assaulted him, broke his nose, mounted the prone Zimmerman, and bounced his head off the pavement.

He never figured on him being armed. Maybe he wasn't thinking straight after smoking a blunt earlier in the evening, who knows? Then again, when you have pot on you, you are kinda reluctant to call police, I suppose.

IF Zimmerman had only listened to 911... IF Martin had only not smoked a blunt earlier in the evening and had the munchies, he wouldn't have needed to go to the Quiky Mart. If only he had called police instead of assaulting Zimmerman. If only he had just talked to Zimmerman instead of assaulting him. We can play "if only" all day long.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quotebut without a second eye witness there is nothing to potentially refute zimmerman.

How dare you say that! Everything in Saint Zimmerman's defense is FACT.

doesn't matter what the defence says...prosecution has to prove their facts.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Solitary"There was more than just Zimmerman's word---he had head wounds on the back of his head and face that fit what he said happened. The victim was never actually threaten by just being followed. He didn't, as the prosecution proved, that he knew Zimmerman had a gun. He just figured I'll be the punk I am and beat the crap out of him and pond his head into concrete until he's unconscious or dead because I know he is scared and doesn't appear to have a gun so I can do it.

I see from the responses to this that a lot of you have never lived on the streets at night in a crime ridden area. I'm originally from Joliet, south of Chicago, and if you hesitated when feeling threaten you either got the crap beat out of you, stabbed, had a razor cut you, or were killed. Zimmerman didn't know if the perpetrator had a gun or knife hidden or not either.

Just because he followed him by not being streetwise doesn't make him wrong and the perpetrator right in his actions to confront him and slam his head into concrete. It also doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong to use deadly force when he thought his life was in danger.  Why was this considered a race card event anyway?

 He wasn't profiled because he was black, he was profiled because he fit the description of perpetrators that were known to be criminals in the high crime rate area with his hoody and actions. At night it is possible he was not even recognized as being black with a hoody on. All the people here that think Zimmerman was wrong---take a walk on the wild side in the streets of Joliet or Chicago at night. I dare you to!  :roll:  Solitary

You have no idea who you are talking to here.

No I don't, I still dare you to!

QuoteNow who's throwing out opinions? And by opinions, I mean implying that the actions leading up to this confrontation were in any way harassment.

If someone follows me in a car, then gets out of the car and starts approaching me, I am assuming I am about to be mugged, raped, kidnapped or murdered. To me, the threat of those 4 things is harassment.

QuoteIf you have an actual point to make then please make it. I'm not going to claim our justice system is perfect, but just insulting it isn't going to get you very far with me.

It has already been made; the American justice system is broke. It throws the innocent in jail and the guilty go free based on who has more money or what state you happen to live in. It executes people who all evidence points to "innocent" and  lets other's commit assault and rape and walk away scott free. So I have no reason to respect a jury's decision when juries have a bad habit of not respecting the law.

QuoteNo, but then again he's not generally going after people he thinks might do him bodily harm. It's also irrelevant.

Weird, it said he went after people who were committing assault... wouldn't that generally put you at risk of bodily harm?

And I agree its irrelevant, I don't see why it was brought up in the first place...

QuoteHe could be Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin for all I care. If the facts suggest he's not guilty, then he's not guilty and that's all there is to it.

But the "facts" dont; we have one guy's (the guy who just shot a kid) witness to the situation, and that's about it. The doctor's said the injuries were not severe nor put him at bodily harm. He lied to the court multiple times about how the assault happened. He lied to the court about his monetary status. He has a history of violent behaviour, including being arrested for assaulting a police officer.

This is a guy who lied throughout the case, this is a guy who has a history of assault... so I'm sorry, but I have a hard time calling his presentation of the story "fact".

And that's the problem; I'm not calling for life in jail, I'm not even calling for more than 5 years in jail... but when you lie to the court multiple times and have a history of violence, I just cannot take you at your word that your version of the story is the 100% truth. I would be perfectly content with a reasonable, payable reparation cost to the victims family and maybe some classes on how NOT to approach a situation like this. But saying that somehow means I am blowing things out of proportion because Treyvon was black, or that I hate Zimemrman, that I am just trying to appear "sane" about the case to "trick" people into agreeing with me or that I have no respect for the jury (that is the only half-way correct one).

I personally don't think there was enough evidence to lock him up either, but the solid FACTS we do know is that he followed a kid, disobeyed police dispatch, didn't follow NHW protocol and as a result a teenager was shot and killed. If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck after calling the police (HELL, even stayed in his truck and observed Treyvon) you know what would have happened? The cops would have shown up (or not) and Treyvon would be alive. If Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun on him (which NHW are NOT suppose to do), you know what would happen? Treyvon would still be alive (because Zimmerman wouldn't be emboldened to go confront him). If Zimmerman had not decided to try to take the law into his hands, you know what would have happened? Treyvon would still be alive.

Given all the SOLID facts we do know, I just cannot say that Zimmerman is not at all responsible for his actions. And again, I don't think he should spend time in jail, but I think he should be forced to pay reasonable reparation to the family and have to take classes on gun safety, how to behave as a neighbourhood watch, etc.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is this a fact?

That was my conclusion. The facts are immediately before it. You are actually reading what I write before responding, yes?

I've come to the conclusion that people who throw around phrases like "Strawman," and "logical fallacy," in a discussion generally don't know what they are talking about. Another idiot for my foes list.

OK! Now add me to your list too, because you just used  fallacies called: Non Sequitur, From Ignorance, Ignoratio Elenchi,  and Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Solitary

QuoteAll the people here that think Zimmerman was wrong---take a walk on the wild side in the streets of Joliet or Chicago at night. I dare you to!  :roll: Solitary

So Zimmerman was the one walking the street at night, and Treyvon was the one who followed and approached him.

Fail.

And I grew up in a Mexican drug town, where people were dragged down main from the back of cars and dismembered body parts sometimes washed up on the riverside... but tell me more about how it's because I live in Utopia as to why I don't understand this case...

Also, still diggin' the hypocrisy.

Quote from: "Seabear"Since we are stating unsubstantiated opinion as fact, let me share my opinion on what I think happened.

First, a question: we know Martin had a cell phone. Why didn't he call police, if he felt so endangered by that "creepy-ass cracker" following him? The police dispatcher would have told him it was just neighborhood watch; situation defused. Why didn't he call?

Zimmerman called; typically, people with criminal intent don't phone the police and stay on the line with them while they commit their crimes. People who consider themselves to be in the right do, however.

Martin didn't call because he didn't feel threatened, that's why. In fact, we know Martin liked to get into fights, based on text messages the jury wasn't allowed to see. I'm willing to bet he figured he would teach that doughy little cracker a lesson. So, when Zimmerman approached him, he picked a fight with someone whom he perceived as a being weaker than him; he figured he could win, and he liked to fight. So he assaulted him, broke his nose, mounted the prone Zimmerman, and bounced his head off the pavement.

He never figured on him being armed. Maybe he wasn't thinking straight after smoking a blunt earlier in the evening, who knows? Then again, when you have pot on you, you are kinda reluctant to call police, I suppose.

Character assassination followed by assumption based on zero evidence.

More character assassination, more assumptions based on zero evidence... followed by even more character assassination and more assumptions based on zero evidence.

Holy mother of hypocrisy, batman!

QuoteIF Zimmerman had only listened to 911... IF Martin had only not smoked a blunt earlier in the evening and had the munchies, he wouldn't have needed to go to the Quiky Mart. If only he had called police instead of assaulting Zimmerman. If only he had just talked to Zimmerman instead of assaulting him. We can play "if only" all day long.

How about this one... IF ONLY Zimmerman never got out of his truck. Sorry, but that is where the situation escalated... if Zimmerman stays in his truck? No one gets killed. Or do you think Martin was going to come and grab Zimmerman's gun through the broken window?

Quote from: "Shiranu"If someone follows me in a car, then gets out of the car and starts approaching me, I am assuming I am about to be mugged, raped, kidnapped or murdered. To me, the threat of those 4 things is harassment.

And in the middle of a city I would tend to agree. But this was a neighborhood. A gated neighborhood at that. I would be more apt to assume it's the neighborhood watch.

Quote from: "Shiranu"It has already been made; the American justice system is broke. It throws the innocent in jail and the guilty go free based on who has more money or what state you happen to live in. It executes people who all evidence points to "innocent" and  lets other's commit assault and rape and walk away scott free.

News at 11.

Quote from: "Shiranu"So I have no reason to respect a jury's decision when juries have a bad habit of not respecting the law.

You've yet to demonstrate that this particular jury did that, though. Those cases I just agreed with? Vastly outnumbered by the ones where justice is served.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Weird, it said he went after people who were committing assault... wouldn't that generally put you at risk of bodily harm?

Haha, you should be a comedian. If I'm comparing a case of life and death with a guy who breaks up domestic disputes I'm obviously not talking about cuts and bruises.

Quote from: "Shiranu"And I agree its irrelevant, I don't see why it was brought up in the first place...

You kept bringing up vigilantism like it was always a bad thing and I thought it was funny.

Quote from: "Shiranu"But the "facts" dont; we have one guy's (the guy who just shot a kid) witness to the situation, and that's about it. The doctor's said the injuries were not severe nor put him at bodily harm. He lied to the court multiple times about how the assault happened. He lied to the court about his monetary status. He has a history of violent behaviour, including being arrested for assaulting a police officer.

This is a guy who lied throughout the case, this is a guy who has a history of assault... so I'm sorry, but I have a hard time calling his presentation of the story "fact".

And that's the problem; I'm not calling for life in jail, I'm not even calling for more than 5 years in jail... but when you lie to the court multiple times and have a history of violence, I just cannot take you at your word that your version of the story is the 100% truth. I would be perfectly content with a reasonable, payable reparation cost to the victims family and maybe some classes on how NOT to approach a situation like this. But saying that somehow means I am blowing things out of proportion because Treyvon was black, or that I hate Zimemrman, or that I have no respect for the jury (that is the only half-way correct one).

I personally don't think there was enough evidence to lock him up either, but the solid FACTS we do know is that he followed a kid, disobeyed police dispatch, didn't follow NHW protocol and as a result a teenager was shot and killed. If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck after calling the police (HELL, even stayed in his truck and observed Treyvon) you know what would have happened? The cops would have shown up (or not) and Treyvon would be alive. If Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun on him (which NHW are NOT suppose to do), you know what would happen? Treyvon would still be alive (because Zimmerman wouldn't be emboldened to go confront him). If Zimmerman had not decided to try to take the law into his hands, you know what would have happened? Treyvon would still be alive.

Given all the SOLID facts we do know, I just cannot say that Zimmerman is not at all responsible for his actions. And again, I don't think he should spend time in jail, but I think he should be forced to pay reasonable reparation to the family and have to take classes on gun safety, how to behave as a neighbourhood watch, etc.

I swear, it's like I'm arguing with the last guy to swing his vote in Twelve Angry Men. This has already been addressed and I will not repeat myself nor the others here.

Look, this is tragic - no one denies it. Thru an unfortunate chain of events, a 17yo kid is dead. He didn't deserve to die; up until the meeting he wasn't doing anything wrong. But that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is guilty of wrongdoing or criminal intent, either.

We have the benefit of hindsight. But on that night, there was no way anyone could know the motives or the true intent of anyone else. We now know that any number of different little choices would have possibly resulted in a different outcome, but the people there that night didn't have the benefit of prescience; not Zimmerman, not Martin, not the 911 dispatcher.

No one set out that night with the intent to cause trouble for anyone else. It could almost be considered an accident.

QuoteYou kept bringing up vigilantism like it was always a bad thing and I thought it was funny.

Maybe because it is?

QuoteI swear, it's like I'm arguing with the last guy to swing his vote in Twelve Angry Men. This has already been addressed and I will not repeat myself nor the others here.

When was it addressed? All I have heard so far is, "If you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with the FACTS!". But the problem is there are very few facts yet people here keep acting like they knew exactly what happened that night, and then several go on character assassination rants and blame it all on Treyvon like they knew EXACTLY what was going through his mind... hell, like they were eye witnesses and saw the glimmer in Treyvon's eyes as he saw poor Zimmerman shaking and sweating as he meekly approached Treyvon.

QuoteNo one set out that night with the intent to cause trouble for anyone else. It could almost be considered an accident.

And I agree 100%. The thing is in accidents the party that caused it normally still receives a (lighter) punishment. But for some reason saying that means I am either "pretending to be sane" to "trick" people into seeing my point of view, that I hated Zimmerman, that I am racist or "Oh, but you don't have ALL the facts! But I DO, because Saint Zimmerman said this is what happened and he has no reason to be wrong!".

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteYou kept bringing up vigilantism like it was always a bad thing and I thought it was funny.

Maybe because it is?

Then demonstrate that next time. Don't just assume I agree with you. I'm representing the opposing argument, after all.

I do think Zimmerman should be penalized in some way, and there will doubtless be a civil suit after this. However, the criminal trial was to determine if he was guilty of 2nd degree murder. He clearly was not, and the jury concurs. They might have been able to get him on manslaughter, but there was no way in this universe that he was ever going to be convicted of murder.

Does that clear up my position for you?

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteYou kept bringing up vigilantism like it was always a bad thing and I thought it was funny.

Maybe because it is?

Then demonstrate that next time. Don't just assume I agree with you. I'm representing the opposing argument, after all.

I do think Zimmerman should be penalized in some way, and there will doubtless be a civil suit after this. However, the criminal trial was to determine if he was guilty of 2nd degree murder. He clearly was not, and the jury concurs. They might have been able to get him on manslaughter, but there was no way in this universe that he was ever going to be convicted of murder.

Does that clear up my position for you?

Like I said, I think the prosecution really fucked it up, and a light case of involuntary manslaughter is the most I think he could have been found guilty of. Yet for some reason saying that makes me a racist villain who hated Zimmerman, who has no respect for the law, and that is what really starts to piss me the fuck off.

And again, the evidence was extremely sketchy given the fact the only person who knows what happened that night was Zimmerman, who lied multiple times to the court and has a history of assault. Given that last bit of evidence, I simply don't see why the same people who accuse me of having no respect for the law then go on tangents based off of Zimmerman word (and their own assumptions) that Treyvon was a blood thirsty criminal looking to beat up some poor white honkey.

It is that fucking hypocrisy there that has me so annoyed at (except for one of the people involved who has always been a douche nozzle) people I generally consider to be somewhat reasonable throwing all rationalism out of the window.

I don't have a problem with you thinking he shouldn't have been charged with murder, I just have a problem with the people who take it one step further and think Martin was the "bad guy" in this cased based off of the word of (and again, their own assumptions) a guy who has an interest in making it look like he wasn't the bad guy.

It does for me, but then again, I watched the trial like you did, and am using facts brought out in the trial for my opinions. Not just hear-say. Solitary

Quote from: "Shiranu"Like I said, I think the prosecution really fucked it up, and a light case of involuntary manslaughter is the most I think he could have been found guilty of. Yet for some reason saying that makes me a racist villain who hated Zimmerman, who has no respect for the law, and that is what really starts to piss me the fuck off.

The way you were wording your arguments led me to believe you thought he was guilty of murder, so that's what I was working off of when arguing with you. It's clear to me now that we agree on more points than we disagree on, so you have my apologies for misinterpreting your position. :oops:

OK! Now add me to your list too, because you just used  fallacies called: Non Sequitur, From Ignorance, Ignoratio Elenchi,  and Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Solitary[/quote]


Done.

Well good, that should put this to rest.

Quote from: "aitm"Well good, that should put this to rest.

:wink:  I had no choice, because not only did he ask me to, he started using big scary Latin words.

:rollin: Good one! Solitary

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Shiranu"Like I said, I think the prosecution really fucked it up, and a light case of involuntary manslaughter is the most I think he could have been found guilty of. Yet for some reason saying that makes me a racist villain who hated Zimmerman, who has no respect for the law, and that is what really starts to piss me the fuck off.

The way you were wording your arguments led me to believe you thought he was guilty of murder, so that's what I was working off of when arguing with you. It's clear to me now that we agree on more points than we disagree on, so you have my apologies for misinterpreting your position. :oops:

Apologies as well for venting my annoyances at others on you.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Shiranu"If someone follows me in a car, then gets out of the car and starts approaching me, I am assuming I am about to be mugged, raped, kidnapped or murdered. To me, the threat of those 4 things is harassment.

And in the middle of a city I would tend to agree. But this was a neighborhood. A gated neighborhood at that. I would be more apt to assume it's the neighborhood watch.

I'd be MUCH more apt to assume that it's a mugger, since NHW is supposed to NOT approach anyone.  They're supposed to AVOID approaching a situation.  Their SOLE purpose is to observe and report.  I'd assume that anyone doing more than observing and reporting is a mugger or a wannabe cop.  I assumed that as a cop, and I assume it as a resident of a neighborhood with a NHW program.

QuoteHaha, you should be a comedian. If I'm comparing a case of life and death with a guy who breaks up domestic disputes I'm obviously not talking about cuts and bruises.

Breaking up a domestic dispute is one of the most dangerous things a cop can be called upon to do.  Facing an armed assailant is less dangerous - because you know you're facing an armed assailant.  When the wife plants a cast iron skillet in your skull because you disparaged her hubby, you weren't expecting to have to defend your life - against the woman you were trying to protect.

QuoteYou kept bringing up vigilantism like it was always a bad thing

It is, unless a life is immediately in danger.  In this particular case, Martin walking down a street didn't constitute a threat to anyone's life.

It is not more complicated than the fact that the prosecution has to prove their case and didn't. Zimmerman may have been culpable in many respects, but the revealed facts did not fit the scenario for 2nd degree murder. If he can prove he felt threatened and was in his mind defending himself, that is sufficient to win.

I'm wondering - reading through this entire thread - why the subject illicits such hard reactions from people(?)  I mean it's sort of like reading through an abortion thread............

wtf?

There's 3 sides. Theres my side which is just trying to look at the facts and not having a dog in the fight. then you have the Zimmerman and Treyvon camps and I sometimes wonder if its because one side thinks this song

[spoil:36lgnei4][youtube:36lgnei4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yV5rl7Yb5E[/youtube:36lgnei4][/spoil:36lgnei4]

is Zimmerman's theme song and want that Klansman to pay.

and the other side apparently thinks This is Treyvons favorite song

[spoil:36lgnei4][youtube:36lgnei4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQjX1h8VuWA[/youtube:36lgnei4][/spoil:36lgnei4]

I'm really surprised that no one has yet brought up the point that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, this never would have happened.

Quote from: "Jmpty"I'm really surprised that no one has yet brought up the point that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, this never would have happened.

I would have,  but I didn't want to be the one to kick off the shit storm that would have followed...

Just don't get why there's a shit storm at all?

Quote from: "Jmpty"I'm really surprised that no one has yet brought up the point that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, this never would have happened.

Because it's one of about a thousand "if onlys" that could have averted disaster.

Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Just don't get why there's a shit storm at all?

(//http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/november/merica_2/murica_1.jpg)

'Murica.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Just don't get why there's a shit storm at all?

[ Image (//http://www.cavemancircus.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/november/merica_2/murica_1.jpg) ]

'Murica.

LMAO
I don't even own a gun.
LOL

Guys, whatever you think about the verdict, its a done deal.

I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

Some posters here would assert that the mere act of following Martin constitutes intent.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

Some posters here would assert that the mere act of following Martin constitutes intent.

I think his intent was to do something, but even he didn't know what it was. He was a man playing at being a hero, and he killed a person because of it. Too many people fancy themselves as vigilantes of justice.

Legally speaking, I would be hard-pressed to charge him with anything under the law. Manslaughter, at the most. That's why this case has drawn so much attention. Did he actually break any laws? According to a judge and jury, he did not.

Ethically speaking? He picked a fight, he started losing that fight, and then he stopped that fight with deadly force when he realized he couldn't win. I can't say that he was innocent in this. He just wasn't. He felt that Martin was doing something wrong (with absolutely no evidence) and against the protestations of 911 and police, he was going to make sure Martin paid for those perceived wrongdoings.

So, I think the question now is.....is there something wrong with the law when people with guns can harass innocent people and get away with killing them when confrontations go sour? Or is that okay? Do we not hold Zimmerman responsible for the many decisions he made that night?

Quote from: "Seabear"3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.

Criminal intent? I thought involuntary manslaughter was without criminal intent.

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

So, without a thought in his head, he accidently pulled out the gun that he didn't know he had, and accidently shot him, without any idea that it would kill him. Oh, I get it now.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

So, without a thought in his head, he accidently pulled out the gun that he didn't know he had, and accidently shot him, without any idea that it would kill him. Oh, I get it now.

so...........what charge are you suggesting then?

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

So, without a thought in his head, he accidently pulled out the gun that he didn't know he had, and accidently shot him, without any idea that it would kill him. Oh, I get it now.

so...........what charge are you suggesting then?

He is obviously innocent of anything, save a small IQ, and low self esteem.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.
4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known
5. Child Abuse: Nope, but amusingly comical, desperate

What's left? given the circumstances, what charge could you possibly bring against the guy with any hope of it sticking?

So, without a thought in his head, he accidently pulled out the gun that he didn't know he had, and accidently shot him, without any idea that it would kill him. Oh, I get it now.

How about Martin jumped him, and while he was pounding his skull into the pavement the concealed gun was revealed and there was a struggle for it which Zimmerman happened to win. A chain of events supported by the fact that the bullet casing was still in the chamber, meaning Martin was gripping the slide when it was discharged.

Face the facts. The worst thing Zimmerman did was make the unwise but absolutely not illegal decision to follow Martin. The entirety of all criminal actions in this case originated from Martin.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Face the facts. The worst thing Zimmerman did was make the unwise but absolutely not illegal decision to follow Martin. The entirety of all criminal actions in this case originated from Martin.

And I agree with that assessment.

But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something. I mean....he instigated it! You can't say he didn't. His many bad decisions led to the death of a man, and he doesn't even get charged with manslaughter. It wasn't an accident. He made conscious decisions against police advice. I mean, to just say that "Well, he was being stupid, can't charge him for that" seems like injustice. Doesn't it?

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something.

Well they can, they just didn't. This is why I feel the prosecution dropped the ball. This is a clear case of manslaughter, but they went with murder instead. Since they couldn't prove murder, Zimmerman may face a civil lawsuit but otherwise gets off scott free. So really the people you should be mad at here are the prosecutors for fucking up the charges.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Face the facts. The worst thing Zimmerman did was make the unwise but absolutely not illegal decision to follow Martin. The entirety of all criminal actions in this case originated from Martin.

And I agree with that assessment.

But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something. I mean....he instigated it! You can't say he didn't. His many bad decisions led to the death of a man, and he doesn't even get charged with manslaughter. It wasn't an accident. He made conscious decisions against police advice. I mean, to just say that "Well, he was being stupid, can't charge him for that" seems like injustice. Doesn't it?

Yes. And yet you have to consider the part where the law is changed "somehow" to cover this very rare situation. How would you do it? Would you change the law so that if you follow someone down the street and they become sufficiently freaked out, they are legally justified in attacking you? What happens if you don't even realize you appear to be following someone and suddenly you're getting attacked? How badly would this new law be abused by people looking for a legal loophole to attack someone? As the accused follower, how are you supposed to prove that you weren't intentionally following someone?

Passing laws to cover the strange cases can have an enormous effect on the more common situations, some of which people might find themselves in every day.

Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

yeah its like the bullshit "Casey's Law" folks wanted passed after the Casey Antony trial.

laws passed due to emotion and not alot of forethought.

laws that wind up backfiring or making things worse.

it sucks that due to bad decisions on both Teyvons and Zimmermans part lead to the unnecessary and untimely death of a kid.

but it is what it is, and emotionalism that leads to bad laws or wrongful convictions won't bring Treyvon back.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something.

Well they can, they just didn't. This is why I feel the prosecution dropped the ball. This is a clear case of manslaughter, but they went with murder instead. Since they couldn't prove murder, Zimmerman may face a civil lawsuit but otherwise gets off scott free. So really the people you should be mad at here are the prosecutors for fucking up the charges.

Okay, we're in total agreement about that.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something.

Well they can, they just didn't. This is why I feel the prosecution dropped the ball. This is a clear case of manslaughter, but they went with murder instead. Since they couldn't prove murder, Zimmerman may face a civil lawsuit but otherwise gets off scott free. So really the people you should be mad at here are the prosecutors for fucking up the charges.

The jury was given instructions that they could convict on a lesser charge of manslaughter. They did not. Apparently it wasn't as clear cut as you seem to think.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

Good thing following someone down the street isnt provoking a fight.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something.

Well they can, they just didn't. This is why I feel the prosecution dropped the ball. This is a clear case of manslaughter, but they went with murder instead. Since they couldn't prove murder, Zimmerman may face a civil lawsuit but otherwise gets off scott free. So really the people you should be mad at here are the prosecutors for fucking up the charges.

The jury was given instructions that they could convict on a lesser charge of manslaughter. They did not. Apparently it wasn't as clear cut as you seem to think.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

Good thing following someone down the street isnt provoking a fight.

Your right; next time you are walking alone at night and some guy starts following you in a pickup, then gets out of the pickup and starts approaching you... I want you to walk over to him and hug him, give him a handshake, look him in the eye and smile!

I hope you enjoy getting mugged. And hell, maybe you even started the fight; shame no one will know since you are laying dead in a pool of blood and the only witness was the guy who shot you. Tough luck, you were so sure that guy was there to offer you a great deal on home mortgages...

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

Good thing following someone down the street isnt provoking a fight.

I want to share a personal anecdote. It may mean nothing, but this situation reminded me of it.

I was followed down the street by a car once in broad daylight. I was walking on the sidewalk and he was slowly keeping pace next to me. He sped up and stopped by me. Gestured at me. I was fucking terrified. I mean....that's creepy! You don't follow people like that! I tried to keep walking, picking up my pace. He kept following. He wouldn't leave me be. I didn't know what to do. Finally, my brain started working and I did a 180 and ran in the opposite direction. He had no choice but to move on because he couldn't follow me. But frankly, if he had gotten out the car, I would have fuckin' maced him, no hesitation.

I know that fear of having some strange weirdo target you and you have no idea what they want from you or what they want to do to you. Laying your hands on someone isn't the only way to instigate (or escalate) a situation.

I just make that argument clear because it gets dismissed often. But that shit's scary.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

Oh, sorry. We should all be convicted for things that weren't illegal before due to Zimmerman's precedent. Oh hey, sodomy is suddenly illegal again and punishable by death, as is saying anything against the government... well shit, I guess we're screwed now, but it was all worth it so some guy we find less than favorable is put in his place.

Quotekill them because you got your ass kicked

He didn't kill because he got his ass kicked, he did it because his head was getting slammed into concrete and the evidence showed this was true. If you had your head being slammed into concrete, what would you do if you had a gun hidden. If he meant to kill the kid why would he have the gun hidden and not pulled out to use it? If he had, maybe the kid would not have attacked him and gotten himself killed. Solitary

QuoteOh, sorry. We should all be convicted for things that weren't illegal before due to Zimmerman's precedent. Oh hey, sodomy is suddenly illegal again and punishable by death, as is saying anything against the government... well shit, I guess we're screwed now, but it was all worth it so some guy we find less than favorable is put in his place.

And now you are swatting down the arguments you are hearing in your own mind... who are you talking to, exactly?

Also, where is the crowd to condemn you for blowing things WAY out of proportions? Shouldn't we be consistent?

QuoteIf he had, maybe the kid would not have attacked him and gotten himself killed.

Yay, 'murica...

"Zimmerman shoulda been flashin' his arms before approachin' dat der kid! Dat wuld dun show dat kid! Gunz erry wur cuz dats da Murican dream! It da wild west!"

QuoteIf you had your head being slammed into concrete, what would you do if you had a gun hidden.

Wouldn't know, I'm not fucking stupid enough to approach someone 9-11 told me not to nor so paranoid to carry a gun around on me.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Face the facts. The worst thing Zimmerman did was make the unwise but absolutely not illegal decision to follow Martin. The entirety of all criminal actions in this case originated from Martin.

And I agree with that assessment.

But I feel that the law should be changed somehow to charge Zimmerman with something. I mean....he instigated it! You can't say he didn't. His many bad decisions led to the death of a man, and he doesn't even get charged with manslaughter. It wasn't an accident. He made conscious decisions against police advice. I mean, to just say that "Well, he was being stupid, can't charge him for that" seems like injustice. Doesn't it?

OK, I wanted to stay out of this discussion, but the bolded part really makes me uncomfortable.

One of the basic principles of justice is that we're all judged based on the law as it was at the moment the alleged crime was committed. To change the law to retroactively charge someone is not admissible, in any case.

We can change a law if we find it inadequate and then charge people for crimes committed after the law is changed.

How would you feel if suddenly a law was passed declaring abortion illegal and punishable with a jail term and then you're put in jail for an abortion you had last year?

We all know that many laws are inadequate and/or plain wrong but the presumption of innocence and the right to be judged according to the law as it was at the time of the fact are not negotiable.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Even if the law was somehow changed to allow similar cases to charge people in similar situations with something, I wouldn't agree with charging Zimmerman using that law. That kind of thing would set a very very scary precedent. Imagine that something you do every day is suddenly illegal, well using this new Zimmerman precedent they charge you for every single incident, going back several years.

Yeah, that precedent sounds almost as scary as being able to stalk someone, provoke a fight with them and then claim self defense if you kill them because you got your ass kicked. I cant see how any one could ever abuse that, either...

:roll:

That precedent is indeed scary because it would send the message that it's fine to change a law, any law, to charge someone retroactively.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Your right; next time you are walking alone at night and some guy starts following you in a pickup, then gets out of the pickup and starts approaching you... I want you to walk over to him and hug him, give him a handshake, look him in the eye and smile!

I hope you enjoy getting mugged. And hell, maybe you even started the fight; shame no one will know since you are laying dead in a pool of blood and the only witness was the guy who shot you. Tough luck, you were so sure that guy was there to offer you a great deal on home mortgages...

Nah i think ill just run away yelling for help. Not in a trillion repeats of this scenario would it ever occur to me or any other sane person to start swinging when there was any other option.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"Your right; next time you are walking alone at night and some guy starts following you in a pickup, then gets out of the pickup and starts approaching you... I want you to walk over to him and hug him, give him a handshake, look him in the eye and smile!

I hope you enjoy getting mugged. And hell, maybe you even started the fight; shame no one will know since you are laying dead in a pool of blood and the only witness was the guy who shot you. Tough luck, you were so sure that guy was there to offer you a great deal on home mortgages...

Nah i think ill just run away yelling for help. Not in a trillion repeats of this scenario would it ever occur to me or any other sane person to start swinging when there was any other option.

In all fairness, we don't really know what was going on in Trayvon's head when he started swinging or under what circumstances. People lash out when they're scared and fear tends to do some funny things to human logic. There could be a few reasons as to why he didn't run. We'll never know though.

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"In all fairness, we don't really know what was going on in Trayvon's head when he started swinging or under what circumstances. People lash out when they're scared and fear tends to do some funny things to human logic. There could be a few reasons as to why he didn't run. We'll never know though.

I guess I would like to know what those few reasons are, because I can't think of a single one.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I think his intent was to do something, but even he didn't know what it was. He was a man playing at being a hero, and he killed a person because of it. Too many people fancy themselves as vigilantes of justice.

There is no evidence that he fancied himself a hero or a vigilante. One could argue that the he was just doing what he felt was his civic duty as neighborhood watch captain to protect his neighborhood from crime.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Legally speaking, I would be hard-pressed to charge him with anything under the law. Manslaughter, at the most. That's why this case has drawn so much attention. Did he actually break any laws? According to a judge and jury, he did not.

Ethically speaking? He picked a fight, he started losing that fight, and then he stopped that fight with deadly force when he realized he couldn't win.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that this is what happened, other than your own wish for it to have occurred as you imagine it, so that you can justify your feelings of anger toward Zimmerman. There is far more evidence that Martin jumped and sucker-punched Zimmerman. One can argue that maybe if Martin hadn't fancied himself such a bad-ass and looking for a fight, he's still be alive.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I can't say that he was innocent in this. He just wasn't. He felt that Martin was doing something wrong (with absolutely no evidence) and against the protestations of 911 and police, he was going to make sure Martin paid for those perceived wrongdoings.

Again, you are claiming malice towards Martin where none can be proven to have existed. One could argue that he saw someone whom he didn't recognize (keeping in mind that, as neighborhood watch captain, he likely knew at least by appearance, many of the residents in his neighborhood), and was simply investigating. Martin was simply an unknown; he didn't know WHAT he was doing.

Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"So, I think the question now is.....is there something wrong with the law when people with guns can harass innocent people and get away with killing them when confrontations go sour? Or is that okay? Do we not hold Zimmerman responsible for the many decisions he made that night?

I would say there definitely WOULD BE something wrong with the law if it allowed people to jump and preemptively beat the shit out people unprovoked, and then get away with it by saying "he scared me". Just talking to someone does not constitute harassment not provocation, and I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that Zimmerman swung first.
 
You have come up with an account of what happened that night thru specualtion, and are now basing your opinions on that speculative account of events as if it were fact. Also, you are employing a double-standard: you want to hold hold Zimmerman accountable for the unforeseeable results of his decisions, while not holding Martin responsible for his. As the evidence and the law sees it, Martin was the first and ONLY person to have broken the law, and that was when he assaulted Zimmerman. If he had just walked away, if he had called 911 since he was so "scared", if he had just talked to Zimmerman... then none of this would have happened.

But, since he was only 17, everyone wants to overlook all of the evidence that Martin committed assault, and blame Zimmerman, even though he broke no laws. In addition, everyone seems to blame Zimmerman for not having the power to see the future and "just know" what events would be set into motion by his seemingly minute decisions. You hold him to a standard that you yourself could not have satisfied.

Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/in ... d=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/in-zimmerman-case-self-defense-was-hard-to-topple.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"In all fairness, we don't really know what was going on in Trayvon's head when he started swinging or under what circumstances. People lash out when they're scared and fear tends to do some funny things to human logic. There could be a few reasons as to why he didn't run. We'll never know though.

I guess I would like to know what those few reasons are, because I can't think of a single one.

Perhaps Zimmerman mentioned he had a gun and Martin didn't want to get shot in the back. Maybe he felt he couldn't outrun him, or maybe he just felt cornered and scared and felt he had no other option, or just the possibility that he knew he was being followed and decided to confront Zimmerman and things went downhill from there. I'm not claiming in any way that any of these scenarios is what actually happened but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility. That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"he knew he was being followed and decided to confront Zimmerman and things went downhill from there.

I think this is most plausible scenario, given what we know.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 98228.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-gun-back_n_3598228.html)

And he is going to get his gun back, because now he needs it more than "ever before".

Genius. Lets give someone who's going to be paranoid about his safety a gun, and then encourage the paranoid behaviour. I don't know how that could EVER be a stupid idea...

I think that people's attitudes on this may have something to do with who's shoes you put yourself in. If you put yourself in Zimmermans shoes, you are following someone that, to you, appears suspicious. You are frustrated as a result of past experiences, IE, "These guys always get away," and you are not going to let that happen again. You can justify him following, and even getting out of his truck to confront Martin. When you get an unexpected result, a violent one, you protect yourself in the only way you are capable of; you shoot him.
  If you put yourself in Martin's shoes, you are walking down the street, minding your own business, when some dude starts following you. You are a little creeped out by this, and try to get away from this dude, but he keeps coming, even getting out of his truck to chase you. You are no shrinking violet, so after trying unsuccessfully  to evade him, you turn and face him with a "What the fuck do you want?" I seriously doubt that George approached with a friendly greeting and indentified himself as a "public servant,"and it escalates from there.
  I can much more easily put myself in Martin's shoes, since I walk down the street from time to time. It is much more difficult for me to understand Zimmerman's actions, as I don't carry a gun, or follow people around. I am the president of my HOA, and involved in our neighborhood watch, and this scenario would NEVER happen here, because everyone involved knows the limitations and responsibilities of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman is not legally culpable under Florida law, he is certainly morally responsible for the death of an innocent teenager, since he clearly initiated the contact.

Quote from: "Jmpty"I think that people's attitudes on this may have something to do with who's shoes you put yourself in. If you put yourself in Zimmermans shoes, you are following someone that, to you, appears suspicious. You are frustrated as a result of past experiences, IE, "These guys always get away," and you are not going to let that happen again. You can justify him following, and even getting out of his truck to confront Martin. When you get an unexpected result, a violent one, you protect yourself in the only way you are capable of; you shoot him.
  If you put yourself in Martin's shoes, you are walking down the street, minding your own business, when some dude starts following you. You are a little creeped out by this, and try to get away from this dude, but he keeps coming, even getting out of his truck to chase you. You are no shrinking violet, so after trying unsuccessfully  to evade him, you turn and face him with a "What the fuck do you want?" I seriously doubt that George approached with a friendly greeting and indentified himself as a "public servant,"and it escalates from there.
  I can much more easily put myself in Martin's shoes, since I walk down the street from time to time. It is much more difficult for me to understand Zimmerman's actions, as I don't carry a gun, or follow people around. I am the president of my HOA, and involved in our neighborhood watch, and this scenario would NEVER happen here, because everyone involved knows the limitations and responsibilities of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman is not legally culpable under Florida law, he is certainly morally responsible for the death of an innocent teenager, since he clearly initiated the contact.

Well said, totally reasonable.

Quote from: "Jmpty"I think that people's attitudes on this may have something to do with who's shoes you put yourself in. If you put yourself in Zimmermans shoes, you are following someone that, to you, appears suspicious. You are frustrated as a result of past experiences, IE, "These guys always get away," and you are not going to let that happen again. You can justify him following, and even getting out of his truck to confront Martin. When you get an unexpected result, a violent one, you protect yourself in the only way you are capable of; you shoot him.
  If you put yourself in Martin's shoes, you are walking down the street, minding your own business, when some dude starts following you. You are a little creeped out by this, and try to get away from this dude, but he keeps coming, even getting out of his truck to chase you. You are no shrinking violet, so after trying unsuccessfully  to evade him, you turn and face him with a "What the fuck do you want?" I seriously doubt that George approached with a friendly greeting and indentified himself as a "public servant,"and it escalates from there.
  I can much more easily put myself in Martin's shoes, since I walk down the street from time to time. It is much more difficult for me to understand Zimmerman's actions, as I don't carry a gun, or follow people around. I am the president of my HOA, and involved in our neighborhood watch, and this scenario would NEVER happen here, because everyone involved knows the limitations and responsibilities of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman is not legally culpable under Florida law, he is certainly morally responsible for the death of an innocent teenager, since he clearly initiated the contact.

I can't put myself in Martin's shoes because I don't understand his actions that night. What he did does not synch with the actions of a scared person.

On the other hand I do understand Zimmerman's actions. In hindsight its easy to point out the things he did that were unwise but legal, but none of them explain Martin's reaction which I still cannot understand given the frame of reference which presumes Martin was frightened of Zimmerman following him. Ive never met anyone who attacks when frightened unless they have no other options left to them.

Given this, I can only assume the 'terrified victim of stalking' frame of reference is false and that something else was going through Martin's mind that night which prompted him to attack.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Jmpty"I think that people's attitudes on this may have something to do with who's shoes you put yourself in. If you put yourself in Zimmermans shoes, you are following someone that, to you, appears suspicious. You are frustrated as a result of past experiences, IE, "These guys always get away," and you are not going to let that happen again. You can justify him following, and even getting out of his truck to confront Martin. When you get an unexpected result, a violent one, you protect yourself in the only way you are capable of; you shoot him.
  If you put yourself in Martin's shoes, you are walking down the street, minding your own business, when some dude starts following you. You are a little creeped out by this, and try to get away from this dude, but he keeps coming, even getting out of his truck to chase you. You are no shrinking violet, so after trying unsuccessfully  to evade him, you turn and face him with a "What the fuck do you want?" I seriously doubt that George approached with a friendly greeting and indentified himself as a "public servant,"and it escalates from there.
  I can much more easily put myself in Martin's shoes, since I walk down the street from time to time. It is much more difficult for me to understand Zimmerman's actions, as I don't carry a gun, or follow people around. I am the president of my HOA, and involved in our neighborhood watch, and this scenario would NEVER happen here, because everyone involved knows the limitations and responsibilities of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman is not legally culpable under Florida law, he is certainly morally responsible for the death of an innocent teenager, since he clearly initiated the contact.

I can't put myself in Martin's shoes because I don't understand his actions that night. What he did does not synch with the actions of a scared person.

On the other hand I do understand Zimmerman's actions. In hindsight its easy to point out the things he did that were unwise but legal, but none of them explain Martin's reaction which I still cannot understand given the frame of reference which presumes Martin was frightened of Zimmerman following him. Ive never met anyone who attacks when frightened unless they have no other options left to them.

Given this, I can only assume the 'terrified victim of stalking' frame of reference is false and that something else was going through Martin's mind that night which prompted him to attack.

Who said he was scared? I wouldn't be scared, I would be concerned, and confused as to why I was being followed, but if he was, it's the fight or flight response that kicks in. He, unfortunately, chose fight. I would have done the same thing.

Edit: I should mention that I am a trained martial artist.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Who said he was scared? I wouldn't be scared, I would be concerned, and confused as to why I was being followed, but if he was, it's the fight or flight response that kicks in. He, unfortunately, chose fight. I would have done the same thing.

Edit: I should mention that I am a trained martial artist.

A few have attempted to justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by claiming that he was afraid. To me the afraid -> attack train of thought makes literally no sense to me given that there were a plethora of other choices available. If Martin had been backed into a corner somehow then I would easily understand a decision to attack. But from all the evidence available, he wasn't backed into any corner. He could have chosen to run, to call for help while running, to call the police himself, or to simply confront Zimmerman in a nonviolent manner. Instead he decided to jump Zimmerman in what I assume was an attack that had no warning, as evidenced by the fact that a man with a firearm had so much trouble with an opponent who was not armed.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Who said he was scared? I wouldn't be scared, I would be concerned, and confused as to why I was being followed, but if he was, it's the fight or flight response that kicks in. He, unfortunately, chose fight. I would have done the same thing.

Edit: I should mention that I am a trained martial artist.

A few have attempted to justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by claiming that he was afraid. To me the afraid -> attack train of thought makes literally no sense to me given that there were a plethora of other choices available. If Martin had been backed into a corner somehow then I would easily understand a decision to attack. But from all the evidence available, he wasn't backed into any corner. He could have chosen to run, to call for help while running, to call the police himself, or to simply confront Zimmerman in a nonviolent manner. Instead he decided to jump Zimmerman in what I assume was an attack that had no warning, as evidenced by the fact that a man with a firearm had so much trouble with an opponent who was not armed.

This is the part that I have trouble with. I don't believe that is what happened. I speculate that some words were exchanged, even Zimmermans story states that, and perhaps even some pushing and shoving, before it went truly physical. A gun in a holster is actually quite useless in a quickly escalating, close quarters confrontation.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Who said he was scared? I wouldn't be scared, I would be concerned, and confused as to why I was being followed, but if he was, it's the fight or flight response that kicks in. He, unfortunately, chose fight. I would have done the same thing.

Edit: I should mention that I am a trained martial artist.

A few have attempted to justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by claiming that he was afraid. To me the afraid -> attack train of thought makes literally no sense to me given that there were a plethora of other choices available. If Martin had been backed into a corner somehow then I would easily understand a decision to attack. But from all the evidence available, he wasn't backed into any corner. He could have chosen to run, to call for help while running, to call the police himself, or to simply confront Zimmerman in a nonviolent manner. Instead he decided to jump Zimmerman in what I assume was an attack that had no warning, as evidenced by the fact that a man with a firearm had so much trouble with an opponent who was not armed.

This is the part that I have trouble with. I don't believe that is what happened. I speculate that some words were exchanged, even Zimmermans story states that, and perhaps even some pushing and shoving, before it went truly physical. A gun in a holster is actually quite useless in a quickly escalating, close quarters confrontation.

What I meant to illustrate was that it is very unlikely that Zimmerman "menaced Martin with a gun" as some people have suggested in this thread. Until the physical confrontation began, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was even armed since the weapon was concealed. So its not like Martin was backed into a corner thinking 'omg theres a guy with a gun following me' because he had no idea Zimmerman was armed. So running away was always an option right up to the point Martin turned the situation into a physical confrontation.

Faaaar more likely to my mind is a "im going to fuck up this old white guy for trying to follow me" thought process, which explains why he didn't run, call for help, or call the police.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"In all fairness, we don't really know what was going on in Trayvon's head when he started swinging or under what circumstances. People lash out when they're scared and fear tends to do some funny things to human logic. There could be a few reasons as to why he didn't run. We'll never know though.

I guess I would like to know what those few reasons are, because I can't think of a single one.

So because you are limited in your ability to think of a valid reason does that therefore mean a valid r reason does not exist?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "MilitantAtheist"In all fairness, we don't really know what was going on in Trayvon's head when he started swinging or under what circumstances. People lash out when they're scared and fear tends to do some funny things to human logic. There could be a few reasons as to why he didn't run. We'll never know though.

I guess I would like to know what those few reasons are, because I can't think of a single one.

So because you are limited in your ability to think of a valid reason does that therefore mean a valid r reason does not exist?

Can I presume from your lack of reasons provided that your ability to think is also limited?

A few have attempted to justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by claiming that he was afraid. To me the afraid -> attack train of thought makes literally no sense to me given that there were a plethora of other choices available. If Martin had been backed into a corner somehow then I would easily understand a decision to attack. But from all the evidence available, he wasn't backed into any corner. He could have chosen to run, to call for help while running, to call the police himself, or to simply confront Zimmerman in a nonviolent manner. Instead he decided to jump Zimmerman in what I assume was an attack that had no warning, as evidenced by the fact that a man with a firearm had so much trouble with an opponent who was not armed.[/quote]

This is the part that I have trouble with. I don't believe that is what happened. I speculate that some words were exchanged, even Zimmermans story states that, and perhaps even some pushing and shoving, before it went truly physical. A gun in a holster is actually quite useless in a quickly escalating, close quarters confrontation.[/quote]

What I meant to illustrate was that it is very unlikely that Zimmerman "menaced Martin with a gun" as some people have suggested in this thread. Until the physical confrontation began, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was even armed since the weapon was concealed. So its not like Martin was backed into a corner thinking 'omg theres a guy with a gun following me' because he had no idea Zimmerman was armed. So running away was always an option right up to the point Martin turned the situation into a physical confrontation.

Faaaar more likely to my mind is a "im going to fuck up this old white guy for trying to follow me" thought process, which explains why he didn't run, call for help, or call the police.[/quote]

This speaks volumes about your mindset. Maybe he just wasn't a coward. After all, he had done nothing wrong.

1) The assertion that Martin attacked Zimmerman is just that - an assertion. We have no independent testimony of what happened.  Zimmerman had many months to come up with that claim - he didn't make it at first.

2)  From Martin's viewpoint it could have been very simply "there's a white guy following me, and black guys have been hanged for no reason for a few centuries in these parts.  I may be in deep shit here."

3) Whether Zimmerman was pissed that "these guys always get away" or not, unless he observed a felony being committed, or he was a peace officer under Florida law, it wasn't within his rights to take any action.

As far as the charge:

Quote from: "Seabear"I've never clearly understood what exactly everyone want to charge Zimmerman with?

Let's break down the options:
1. Murder 1: Intentional and premeditated murder. Nope, can't charge him with that; both sides agree it wasn't premeditated.
2. Murder 2: Intentional but not premeditated. Nope, can't make that stick - can't prove it was intentional.
3. Manslaughter:
      3a. Voluntary: Nope, no malice aforethought
      3b. Involuntary: Nope, can't show that Zimmerman had criminal intent, nor was he criminally negligent at the time of the shooting.

According to Florida law, "Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in "Culpably Negligent" conduct that resulted in the death of another person."  Getting out of your vehicle to follow someone who wasn't doing anything wrong (according to the law, not according to Zimmerman) is culpability.  It doesn't require any intent, criminal or non-criminal.

And an affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the defendant - the prosecution doesn't have to prove that it wasn't self defense, Zimmerman had to prove that it was.

What I see here is that the prosecution didn't want to do anything to Zimmerman (look at how long it took just to arrest him - would they have waited that long if Martin had killed Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun?), so they mounted a show that they knew would look good but result in an acquittal.  It's been done many, many times before.

What they've told him, especially by allowing him to still carry, is "if you see anyone else you can claim 'looks suspicious', you can shoot him and use this trial as a precedent".  It's now open season on anyone Zimmerman doesn't like.  DWB now adds WWB as probable cause.

Quote4. Assault: Nope, Zimmerman was the one assaulted, by all evidence known

There's no evidence, just Zimmerman's assertion.  If Zimmerman started it, he wasn't the one assaulted.  Defense against assault isn't assault.

It's probably going to remain a case of acquittal due to lack of any evidence, not due to the fact that the action was justified.

Quote from: "Jmpty"This speaks volumes about your mindset. Maybe he just wasn't a coward. After all, he had done nothing wrong.

Yeah okay. He was a macho macho man and that explains everything.  :roll:

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"So because you are limited in your ability to think of a valid reason does that therefore mean a valid r reason does not exist?

Can I presume from your lack of reasons provided that your ability to think is also limited?

If it makes you feel all smug with your bad self, go for it champ. You haven't answered my question though. That seems to be a habit with you.

In case anyone is interested, here is the actual phone call to the cops:
 from wiki
[spoil:fm89unu5]Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Okay, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: Okay...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: Okay. You said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse... [Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse. Do you know what the—he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens. Okay.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted]
Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, [Note 3, 4th picture] that's my truck...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address.[Note 3, 6th & 7th pictures]
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.
Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah. That's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah, I got it [redacted]
Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay. No problem. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area.
Zimmerman: Thanks.
Dispatcher: You're welcome.[93][/spoil:fm89unu5]

So, one has to wonder how we think trayvon was just walking down the street minding his own business, when in fact, he spots someone watching him and then takes off running.

QuoteSo, one has to wonder how we think trayvon was just walking down the street minding his own business, when in fact, he spots someone watching him and then takes off running.

This was (I'm guessing?) after Zimmerman had got out of the truck; after he had been following him for several minutes.

And yes, if someone is following me in the middle of the night, I am taking the fuck off as well. That doesn't mean I'm a criminal, it means I don't want to be kidnapped, taken south of the border and found in 6 different pieces floating up the Rio.

Shit, I've had to run away from a cop car before because I was walking with "suspicious" looking black and Mexican kids in a trashy neighbourhood. After the second time he looped around to follow us, as soon as he went around the corner we took the fuck off.

Doesn't mean we were criminals, just means when people stalk you, you get uncomfortable.

QuoteThis was (I'm guessing?) after Zimmerman had got out of the truck; after he had been following him for several minutes.

not according to how I read this. He took off running which is why zimmy got out of the car and followed.

Quote from: "aitm"

QuoteThis was (I'm guessing?) after Zimmerman had got out of the truck; after he had been following him for several minutes.

not according to how I read this. He took off running which is why zimmy got out of the car and followed.

Followed,...you mean chased, right?

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "aitm"

QuoteThis was (I'm guessing?) after Zimmerman had got out of the truck; after he had been following him for several minutes.

not according to how I read this. He took off running which is why zimmy got out of the car and followed.

Followed,...you mean chased, right?

I have no problem with him chasing the guy.

So if you are a random guy walking back to where your staying, minding your own business, doing nothing illegal, its perfectly acceptable for people to assume you're a criminal and start chasing you.

Makes perfect sense, don't know how that could ever end up badly... oh wait...

keep up with the convo Shir, he was chasing because the guy for no reason starts sprinting through the neighborhood, he did what I think we should. Read the transcript, follow the convo, I didn't just say, "yeah, see a guy walking down the street, throw the truck into reverse and jump out sprinting after someone."

He ran after a guy started stalking him FOR NO REASON.

On the one hand, you argue, "Treyvon should have run! Treyvon should have called the police!"

But then you say when he runs, "Treyvon shouldn't have run! Zimmerman had to chase him!"

Make up your fucking mind; Should Treyvon have run like Nonsensei and other's have said, or should he not have run like you are now suggesting? It seems no matter what he did you guys are going to say, "He was in the wrong!". He was damned if he ran according to you and he was damned if he stood his ground according to you... well fuck, I guess he was guilty using that logic.

Quote from: "Shiranu"He ran after a guy started stalking him FOR NO REASON.

On the one hand, you argue, "Treyvon should have run! Treyvon should have called the police!"

But then you say when he runs, "Treyvon shouldn't have run! Zimmerman had to chase him!"

Make up your fucking mind; Should Treyvon have run like Nonsensei and other's have said, or should he not have run like you are now suggesting? It seems no matter what he did you guys are going to say, "He was in the wrong!". He was damned if he ran according to you and he was damned if he stood his ground according to you... well fuck, I guess he was guilty using that logic.

I had to re-read the transcript again because I can't understand why you keep saying zimmerman "stalked" martin...where do you get that from? According to the report, the dinging of zimmerman car door doesn't start until martin takes off running.. it is NOW when zimmerman gives chase.. (according to the transcripts)

But I think you and I have argued enough about this. We see it differently.

Like I said in the other thread... if a guy is following me slowly in a car, looking at me for several minutes... I am assuming I am about to be mugged, raped, kidnapped, murdered, whatever. And I am taking off as soon as I see a yard I can hop the fence and lose him in.

I sure as hell am not leading some guy following me back to the place I am staying.

Followed,...you mean chased, right?[/quote]

I have no problem with him chasing the guy.[/quote]

That's where we really see things differently.

I don't see any justification in Zimmerman following the kid. he should have listened to the operator. but on the other hand I don't see any justification for Treyvon to attack Zimmerman either.

essentially a kid is dead becaue he and Zimmerman both made stupid choices and let an otherwise benign situation get out of control.

The way I read the transcript (I only have 12 years experience dispatching, so forgive me if I get this wrong) is "I'm sitting here watching this kid, and he's coming toward me.  He isn't doing anything that I want a kid in my neighborhood to be doing, so he must be doing something wrong.  I don't want to identify myself further than my name and phone number, and I can't tell you where the officer should meet me because I'm probably going to follow the kid.  And I don't know exactly where I am, even though I live on this street."

I'd have insisted that he stay right at the mailboxes, and I'd have told the responding officer to make it fast.  The entire transcript sounds like trouble with a huge flashing "T".

QuoteI don't see any justification in Zimmerman following the kid. he should have listened to the operator

but he did, after he was told to stop, he did, according to the scripts, he chased him before being asked not to..again, according to the scripts.

Quote from: "aitm"

QuoteI don't see any justification in Zimmerman following the kid. he should have listened to the operator

but he did, after he was told to stop, he did, according to the scripts, he chased him before being asked not to..again, according to the scripts.

But then he got back out of the truck and approached him. After chasing him I guess the first time, he got back in the truck. If he hadn't gotten back out this entire situation would not have happened.

Quote from: "aitm"

QuoteI don't see any justification in Zimmerman following the kid. he should have listened to the operator

but he did, after he was told to stop, he did, according to the scripts, he chased him before being asked not to..again, according to the scripts.

Are you sure about that?  Zimmerman stopped pursuing after the dispatcher advised him against following Martin?  I haven't been following the case, but from what I remember a year ago it seemed that Zimmerman continued pursuing after being advised against it.

This is one of the most eloquent articles written on the case I've read.  It's well worth a read, especially this part:

QuoteMistake No. 3 was Zimmerman's utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You're a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman's initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn't identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin's criminal intent that he hadn't considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker." The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, "You better run." She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman's phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin's phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tions.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html)

History has provided us with an appropriate quote for this situation:

"One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic."
~ Joseph Stalin

Quote from: "Shiranu"Edit: Fuck it, you have your little victory.

Congratulations America, you have continued the fine tradition of letting murderers go scott free. Hope you are oh so damn proud of yourselves.

If he was found guilty it would have been far, far more serious an injustice.

If the courts start to rule in favor of public opinion rather then physical evidence, we are all in serious trouble. (probably)

Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"

Quote from: "Shiranu"Edit: Fuck it, you have your little victory.

Congratulations America, you have continued the fine tradition of letting murderers go scott free. Hope you are oh so damn proud of yourselves.

If he was found guilty it would have been far, far more serious an injustice.

If the courts start to rule in favor of public opinion rather then physical evidence, we are all in serious trouble. (probably)

I'm going to keep this short because there is a whole thread on this...

Yes, the law worked, and that's the problem; the law protects following a kid in a truck, having the 9-11 operator tell you not to follow them, you ignore that advice and follow him anyways, leave said vehicle and approach the person on foot, get in a conflict with the suspect and if at any point you feel threatened you are at liberty to shoot the person.

That is not a law that protects the people, that is a law that allows you to provoke a fight, and so long as you kill the only other witness you can claim it was in self-defense; and under Floridian law Treyvon was in the right as well... we talked about Zimmerman's right to "stand your ground"... where was Treyvon's?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"So because you are limited in your ability to think of a valid reason does that therefore mean a valid r reason does not exist?

Can I presume from your lack of reasons provided that your ability to think is also limited?

If it makes you feel all smug with your bad self, go for it champ. You haven't answered my question though. That seems to be a habit with you.

I don't accept the premise of your retarded question "champ".

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"So because you are limited in your ability to think of a valid reason does that therefore mean a valid r reason does not exist?

Can I presume from your lack of reasons provided that your ability to think is also limited?

If it makes you feel all smug with your bad self, go for it champ. You haven't answered my question though. That seems to be a habit with you.

No YOUR foot is dumb!

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"

Quote from: "Shiranu"Edit: Fuck it, you have your little victory.

Congratulations America, you have continued the fine tradition of letting murderers go scott free. Hope you are oh so damn proud of yourselves.

If he was found guilty it would have been far, far more serious an injustice.

If the courts start to rule in favor of public opinion rather then physical evidence, we are all in serious trouble. (probably)

I'm going to keep this short because there is a whole thread on this...

Yes, the law worked, and that's the problem; the law protects following a kid in a truck, having the 9-11 operator tell you not to follow them, you ignore that advice and follow him anyways, leave said vehicle and approach the person on foot, get in a conflict with the suspect and if at any point you feel threatened you are at liberty to shoot the person.

That is not a law that protects the people, that is a law that allows you to provoke a fight, and so long as you kill the only other witness you can claim it was in self-defense; and under Floridian law Treyvon was in the right as well... we talked about Zimmerman's right to "stand your ground"... where was Treyvon's?

To what law are you referring, specifically?

Quote from: "Nonsensei"I don't accept the premise of your retarded question "champ".

Its a very valid question just the same. And the answer to that question more or less renders your previous statement pointless. But I bet you knew that already.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"I don't accept the premise of your retarded question "champ".

Its a very valid question just the same. And the answer to that question more or less renders your previous statement pointless. But I bet you knew that already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)

get your head out of your ass.

Just because you cannot imagine a valid reason why Martin might have stated swinging (if he even did) in no way shape or form means a valid reason does not exist. There. Is that plain enough for you?

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Shiranu"under Floridian law Treyvon was in the right as well... we talked about Zimmerman's right to "stand your ground"... where was Treyvon's?

To what law are you referring, specifically?

Stand your Ground.  Martin had as much right to not retreat as Zimmerman did.  (Which is why the law is so bad - it's a "it's legal to kill each other" law.)

What was he looking for, that he brought a gun? He was looking for something, it wasn't a coincidental meeting on the street. If Zimmerman actively sought out and killed a perceived threat that turned out to be nothing more than someone passing through, why is there no manslaughter charge? I can buy that he didn't set out to kill or murder him, but why did he invite this situation into his life? It's dearly irresponsible, and he is obviously a further danger to his community if he is inclined to kill a simple wayfarer.

To presume that either side started the fight is utterly irrelevant, because there is no evidence either way. It might as well be dismissed from opinion. The facts are that one person is dead, the other isn't, but the one who killed him admitted to following him for completely baseless and unfounded reasoning.

Quote from: "Johan"Just because you cannot imagine a valid reason why Martin might have stated swinging (if he even did) in no way shape or form means a valid reason does not exist. There. Is that plain enough for you?

Yeah fine, but that's a baseless assertion until you can provide a reason of your own, which so far you have steadfastly refused to do instead deciding to play some stupid game of verbal grabass.

Quote from: "mister hoover"What was he looking for, that he brought a gun? He was looking for something, it wasn't a coincidental meeting on the street. If Zimmerman actively sought out and killed a perceived threat that turned out to be nothing more than someone passing through, why is there no manslaughter charge? I can buy that he didn't set out to kill or murder him, but why did he invite this situation into his life? It's dearly irresponsible, and he is obviously a further danger to his community if he is inclined to kill a simple wayfarer.

To presume that either side started the fight is utterly irrelevant, because there is no evidence either way. It might as well be dismissed from opinion. The facts are that one person is dead, the other isn't, but the one who killed him admitted to following him for completely baseless and unfounded reasoning.

Theres plenty of evidence that Martin started the fight though. Zimmerman was the only one who sustained damage consistent with blunt force trauma, indicating that Martin immediately had the upper hand in the altercation, or in other words jumped him. Theres also evidence that there was a struggle for the gun, something that couldn't have happened unless Zimmerman was taken totally by surprise.

As to why Zimmerman had a gun, he probably takes it with him wherever he goes, or at least whenever he walks the street at night. He lives in a high crime neighborhood, and having the means to defend yourself is just common sense. And as it turns out he needed it for exactly the reason he thought he might need it for.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"Just because you cannot imagine a valid reason why Martin might have stated swinging (if he even did) in no way shape or form means a valid reason does not exist. There. Is that plain enough for you?

Yeah fine, but that's a baseless assertion until you can provide a reason of your own, which so far you have steadfastly refused to do instead deciding to play some stupid game of verbal grabass.

I have to provide no such reason. I wasn't there. I didn't see what he saw. I didn't experience what he experienced. So I no obligation to try to come up with his reasoning. My only obligation is to acknowledge that its possible he had a valid reason to do what he did even if I can't imagine what it was.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"Just because you cannot imagine a valid reason why Martin might have stated swinging (if he even did) in no way shape or form means a valid reason does not exist. There. Is that plain enough for you?

Yeah fine, but that's a baseless assertion until you can provide a reason of your own, which so far you have steadfastly refused to do instead deciding to play some stupid game of verbal grabass.

I have to provide no such reason. I wasn't there. I didn't see what he saw. I didn't experience what he experienced. So I no obligation to try to come up with his reasoning. My only obligation is to acknowledge that its possible he had a valid reason to do what he did even if I can't imagine what it was.

In other words you can't think of one. Glad we took 93 posts to confirm what I determined immediately.

One good reason might be, "It's the deep south, a guy is following you, he might have a weapon but hasn't brandished it yet, so beat him senseless before he has a chance to hurt you." Granted, that's probably not what I would do in Trayvon's place. Beating a man still gives him a chance to get his weapon. Strangulation is much more effective once he's on the ground beneath you, as is a quick jab to the throat if you have an opening. If you fear for your life, you shouldn't be picky about how you disable/kill the person beyond how quickly you can eliminate the threat.

This is assuming I picked a fight, of course; had I time to assess the situation I might try talking him down first if I thought I could. I don't know if Trayvon had that chance or not. Given that Zimmerman tried talking first (which we could hear through Martin's phone), I'm inclined to believe Martin had that chance. Since his first reaction was to attack Zimmerman up close, it's also unlikely that Zimmerman had his gun unholstered, much less pointing at Martin right then. Basically, the evidence suggests that Martin should have been able to engage Zimmerman in dialogue and establish that this was a misunderstanding.


Don't take that to mean I'm blind to Zimmerman's role in creating the situation in the first place. Just because it's not what I'm talking about at the moment doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"In other words you can't think of one. Glad we took 93 posts to confirm what I determined immediately.

In other words I don't have to and it doesn't matter. Which was my point from the start.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "mister hoover"Theres plenty of evidence that Martin started the fight though. Zimmerman was the only one who sustained damage consistent with blunt force trauma, indicating that Martin immediately had the upper hand in the altercation, or in other words jumped him. Theres also evidence that there was a struggle for the gun, something that couldn't have happened unless Zimmerman was taken totally by surprise.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary though so just stick to the facts that are either concrete or Zimmerman has admitted to.

And trust, if I had just killed a kid for no good reason, I would headbutt the pavement too and make sure it was self defense ;)

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "mister hoover"What was he looking for, that he brought a gun? He was looking for something, it wasn't a coincidental meeting on the street. If Zimmerman actively sought out and killed a perceived threat that turned out to be nothing more than someone passing through, why is there no manslaughter charge? I can buy that he didn't set out to kill or murder him, but why did he invite this situation into his life? It's dearly irresponsible, and he is obviously a further danger to his community if he is inclined to kill a simple wayfarer.

To presume that either side started the fight is utterly irrelevant, because there is no evidence either way. It might as well be dismissed from opinion. The facts are that one person is dead, the other isn't, but the one who killed him admitted to following him for completely baseless and unfounded reasoning.

Theres plenty of evidence that Martin started the fight though. Zimmerman was the only one who sustained damage consistent with blunt force trauma, indicating that Martin immediately had the upper hand in the altercation, or in other words jumped him. Theres also evidence that there was a struggle for the gun, something that couldn't have happened unless Zimmerman was taken totally by surprise.

As to why Zimmerman had a gun, he probably takes it with him wherever he goes, or at least whenever he walks the street at night. He lives in a high crime neighborhood, and having the means to defend yourself is just common sense. And as it turns out he needed it for exactly the reason he thought he might need it for.

You just keep living up to your name. Nonsensei. You go boy!

Quote from: "Nonsensei"In other words you can't think of one. Glad we took 93 posts to confirm what I determined immediately.

I know this wasn't directed at me but:

For all we know, since there are no other witnesses left alive, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and threatened Martin with it.  Or even just had it out at all.  He could have called out STOP or something, while holding the gun.  If he was close, Martin might have been trying to get it away from him (a better explanation for the struggle for the gun, honestly) or knock it out of his hand when he jumped on him and hit Zimmermans head on the ground, since at close range, running from a gunman is likely to get you shot in the back.

I can completely imagine a number of scenarios in which Zimmerman started AND ended the fight, but we will never know for sure. The evidence doesn't say who started the fight or the confrontation, it only says Martin got a few hits in before he was killed.

QuoteAs to why Zimmerman had a gun, he probably takes it with him wherever he goes

according to wiki's detailed report, ole zimmy started carrying the gun because a neighborhood pit bull had been terrorizing the locals and supposedly cornered his wife, he was advised to "get a gun" by a animal control officer who told him the pepper spray wouldn't work.

Interesting info here, says zimmy complained at a council meeting about a white cop who beat up a homeless black man a couple years earlier...poor ole georgy,
and another thing..seems like his "criminal background" is pretty much bullshit. Mild stuff, the domestic abuse is seen as a ex getting pissy, and the assault was shoving a cop during a questioning of some underage drinking...real heavy crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin)

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"

Quote from: "Shiranu"Edit: Fuck it, you have your little victory.

Congratulations America, you have continued the fine tradition of letting murderers go scott free. Hope you are oh so damn proud of yourselves.

If he was found guilty it would have been far, far more serious an injustice.

If the courts start to rule in favor of public opinion rather then physical evidence, we are all in serious trouble. (probably)

I'm going to keep this short because there is a whole thread on this...

Yes, the law worked, and that's the problem; the law protects following a kid in a truck, having the 9-11 operator tell you not to follow them, you ignore that advice and follow him anyways, leave said vehicle and approach the person on foot, get in a conflict with the suspect and if at any point you feel threatened you are at liberty to shoot the person.

That is not a law that protects the people, that is a law that allows you to provoke a fight, and so long as you kill the only other witness you can claim it was in self-defense; and under Floridian law Treyvon was in the right as well... we talked about Zimmerman's right to "stand your ground"... where was Treyvon's?

Well, to be honest I am completely baffled by firearm laws in America. (I am from Canada)

The fact that people are even permitted to carry concealed firearms in the first place is something I certainly wouldn't approve of, and to have myself and everyone around me carrying a gun as if it was a routine safety measure is difficult to imagine.

I would argue that there are quite a number of laws concerning firearms that have been passed under the premise of personal safety that in truth are quite hazardous.

However, if Im not mistaken the "Stand your ground" law was irrelevant to this case.

Quote from: "mister hoover"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "mister hoover"Theres plenty of evidence that Martin started the fight though. Zimmerman was the only one who sustained damage consistent with blunt force trauma, indicating that Martin immediately had the upper hand in the altercation, or in other words jumped him. Theres also evidence that there was a struggle for the gun, something that couldn't have happened unless Zimmerman was taken totally by surprise.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary though so just stick to the facts that are either concrete or Zimmerman has admitted to.

And trust, if I had just killed a kid for no good reason, I would headbutt the pavement too and make sure it was self defense ;)

But the facts I mentioned are concrete. They were introduced during the trial.

And example of non-facts would be your assertion that Zimmerman self inflicted those wounds.

Quote from: "Jmpty"You just keep living up to your name. Nonsensei. You go boy!

The bark of a dog who has nothing to contribute.

In my local town,,,too funny

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/201 ... Zimmerman- (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130717/NEWS01/130717009/Police-Melbourne-man-held-after-punching-truck-while-yelling-Zimmerman-)

Heard an interesting point from a relative (who happens to be a judge); thought I would see what the forum thought about it. Not sure it's been brought up before. If so apologies.

From what I understood, in a self defense situation, you only have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. If you continue the beating your assailant after you have ended the threat, then self defense no longer applies.  In other words, just because someone else starts it, that doesn't give a person the right to beat that person as much or as long or as badly as they want.

So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?




Also, not sure why all the buzz about the "SYG" laws in the media. From what I have read, SYG was not used in any part of this case. GZ waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing.

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"In other words you can't think of one. Glad we took 93 posts to confirm what I determined immediately.

I know this wasn't directed at me but:

For all we know, since there are no other witnesses left alive, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and threatened Martin with it.  Or even just had it out at all.  He could have called out STOP or something, while holding the gun.  If he was close, Martin might have been trying to get it away from him (a better explanation for the struggle for the gun, honestly) or knock it out of his hand when he jumped on him and hit Zimmermans head on the ground, since at close range, running from a gunman is likely to get you shot in the back.

I can completely imagine a number of scenarios in which Zimmerman started AND ended the fight, but we will never know for sure. The evidence doesn't say who started the fight or the confrontation, it only says Martin got a few hits in before he was killed.

There's a lot of ways both Zimmerman and Trayvon could've done things different that this would've turned out a lot different. The early fuckups were all Zimmerman. A big number 1, don't follow the kid like a creepy fucking stalker. For a kid not doing anything wrong, that could be really damn scary forcing a bad reaction. 2. Don't get out of the truck, especially after police dispatch advised him not to. 3. Once Trayvon confronted him asking what the hell he was following him for, he should've immediately identified himself saying, hey kid, I'm on the neighborhood watch, I didn't recognize you as a resident, are you visiting someone who lives here? Trayvon could've said, yeah, my dad lives in blah blah apartment, I'm just walking back from the store, and Zimmerman would say sorry to bother you, have a nice evening, even being cool and say, welcome the kid to the neighborhood to quickly suppress any animosity. He did none of the above. He was a wannabe cop and from his 911 call clearly got all excited, overstepped his bounds and wasn't thinking logically. It all fell apart because Zimmerman couldn't possibly imagine at the time that Trayvon wasn't up to anything bad, was just walking home, and ran because of Zimmerman creeping him out.

Now Trayvon, after obviously being creeped out by the weird guy following him, especially after he first ran he should've just kept running home. He was basically a dumb teenager and tried to be tough, went back, and started shit with the guy following him, not knowing the guy was packing heat. I really don't doubt Trayvon started the fight, but Zimmerman was basically a big fucking pussy when he found himself in a real fight after thinking he was cool guy wannabe cop, was getting his ass kicked by a kid much smaller than him and pulled out his gun and shot Trayvon. Game over. I've had head wounds, got cleated in the head playing rugby once which bled a lot but barely hurt, and what he had was really minor. At the time, he probably did think it was self-defense, he was a wimp but he knew he had that gun to beat the odds. I think a lot of his claims were bullshit legal moves, the death threat he claimed Trayvon said doesn't sound in the least like something a 17 year old would say, and I don't buy his claim that Trayvon saw and went for the gun.

The weird thing about the self-defense claim is that Trayvon really could've claimed it too if he'd lived, especially with Florida's Stand Your Ground law, in attacking Zimmerman. Just to give a different way of looking at it, what if it was a woman he was following around. Is there anything about the scenario where she wouldn't think Zimmerman was some freak about to try to rape her? And there's one of the big ways that Stand Your Ground law is dangerous. It's not for nothing that self-defense claims tripled in Florida after that law was implemented. It's basically a way to legally murder someone and all you have to do is claim self-defense as long as no witness can cast doubt on it. It's basically your word against a dead guy's lack of a word. The one thing I'd be interested in seeing is some remorse from Zimmerman, which maybe I've just missed and he probably wouldn't to keep from looking guilty in the trial, but I haven't heard it. Even if he was absolutely legally in the right, he still killed a teenage kid who was doing nothing wrong. He should feel horrible about it the rest of his life and be begging the Martin family for forgiveness.

All in all, it was a perfect storm of an overzealous idiot thinking he was Batman, a kid that who wanted to be a tough guy, and a really bad law or two.

Quote from: "Seabear"Heard an interesting point from a relative (who happens to be a judge); thought I would see what the forum thought about it. Not sure it's been brought up before. If so apologies.

From what I understood, in a self defense situation, you only have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. If you continue the beating your assailant after you have ended the threat, then self defense no longer applies.  In other words, just because someone else starts it, that doesn't give a person the right to beat that person as much or as long or as badly as they want.

So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?




Also, not sure why all the buzz about the "SYG" laws in the media. From what I have read, SYG was not used in any part of this case. GZ waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing.

So where does the shooting an unarmed someone in the heart fall in this self defense scenario?

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"Heard an interesting point from a relative (who happens to be a judge); thought I would see what the forum thought about it. Not sure it's been brought up before. If so apologies.

From what I understood, in a self defense situation, you only have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. If you continue the beating your assailant after you have ended the threat, then self defense no longer applies.  In other words, just because someone else starts it, that doesn't give a person the right to beat that person as much or as long or as badly as they want.

So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?




Also, not sure why all the buzz about the "SYG" laws in the media. From what I have read, SYG was not used in any part of this case. GZ waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing.

So where does the shooting an unarmed someone in the heart fall in this self defense scenario?

When there's a struggle for the gun, managing to shoot your assailant before they can get the gun away from you is the minimum force necessary, because anything less means you're the one who gets shot.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"Heard an interesting point from a relative (who happens to be a judge); thought I would see what the forum thought about it. Not sure it's been brought up before. If so apologies.

From what I understood, in a self defense situation, you only have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. If you continue the beating your assailant after you have ended the threat, then self defense no longer applies.  In other words, just because someone else starts it, that doesn't give a person the right to beat that person as much or as long or as badly as they want.

So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?




Also, not sure why all the buzz about the "SYG" laws in the media. From what I have read, SYG was not used in any part of this case. GZ waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing.

So where does the shooting an unarmed someone in the heart fall in this self defense scenario?

Fair question. Let me answer it with another. If an unarmed person who is bigger and stronger than you is on top of you beating you and pounding your head on the concrete, and you have no other way of making them stop, how much damage do you feel like you are obliged to let them do to your skull? I mean, since they are unarmed.

Not saying that makes it okay, but I don't think that it's reasonable to judge the entire conflict based on the final outcome alone. In fairness, you must consider everything that lead up to it.

So given that it stopped being self defense after TM continued to pursue beating a prone GZ, how do you reconcile that with your opinion that GZ was totally at fault here?

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Johan"Just because you cannot imagine a valid reason why Martin might have stated swinging (if he even did) in no way shape or form means a valid reason does not exist. There. Is that plain enough for you?

Yeah fine, but that's a baseless assertion until you can provide a reason of your own, which so far you have steadfastly refused to do instead deciding to play some stupid game of verbal grabass.

What you're saying, in effect, is that if you want to terrorize someone, make sure you kill him so that he can't testify that you started it.  It works, but it's not how this nation is supposed to work.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "mister hoover"What was he looking for, that he brought a gun? He was looking for something, it wasn't a coincidental meeting on the street. If Zimmerman actively sought out and killed a perceived threat that turned out to be nothing more than someone passing through, why is there no manslaughter charge? I can buy that he didn't set out to kill or murder him, but why did he invite this situation into his life? It's dearly irresponsible, and he is obviously a further danger to his community if he is inclined to kill a simple wayfarer.

To presume that either side started the fight is utterly irrelevant, because there is no evidence either way. It might as well be dismissed from opinion. The facts are that one person is dead, the other isn't, but the one who killed him admitted to following him for completely baseless and unfounded reasoning.

Theres plenty of evidence that Martin started the fight though. Zimmerman was the only one who sustained damage consistent with blunt force trauma, indicating that Martin immediately had the upper hand in the altercation, or in other words jumped him.

Just an assumption on your part.  It could also indicate that Zimmerman swung first, but that Martin far outclassed him.  The relative amount of injury and who started the fight have no connection.

QuoteTheres also evidence that there was a struggle for the gun

Zimmerman's assertion - long after the fact (he didn't make any such claim at first) - but no evidence.  In fact, the ONLY actual evidence is a few minor injuries that Zimmerman suffered.  (A broken nose is a minor injury.)  Absolutely no evidence that deadly force was warranted.

Quotesomething that couldn't have happened unless Zimmerman was taken totally by surprise.

1) Sure it could have, unless Zimmerman pulled the weapon the minute Martin got close.  2) There's no actual evidence that there was any struggle for the weapon at all.

Quote from: "mister hoover"And trust, if I had just killed a kid for no good reason, I would headbutt the pavement too and make sure it was self defense ;)

And there's exactly as much evidence for that as there is that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"But the facts I mentioned are concrete.

The only relevant "facts" are that Zimmerman sustained minor injuries and that, contrary to what he was told to do, he kept following Martin.  Everything else is either Zimmerman's assertion or irrelevant.

Who started the fight?  Was there any struggle for the weapon?  Did Martin ever strike Zimmerman?  We'll never know.

Quote from: "Seabear"So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?

We don't know that Martin DID "mount" Zimmerman or beat him, we only know that Zimmerman made the assertion.

Assuming a witness, Martin would have had the right to use sufficient force to assure that Zimmerman couldn't restart the assault.  Breaking his nose is less force than that.  Going further than breaking his arm or leg would probably have been more force than was justified.  But just knocking Zimmerman down doesn't end the threat.

Just because you can concoct a hypothetical scenario in your imagination that makes GZ the cut-and-dry bad guy doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality.

You've really been reduced to grasping at straws here in order to support your opinion, haven't you?

QuoteAssuming a witness, Martin would have had the right to use sufficient force to assure that Zimmerman couldn't restart the assault. Breaking his nose is less force than that. Going further than breaking his arm or leg would probably have been more force than was justified. But just knocking Zimmerman down doesn't end the threat.

You are 100% dead wrong in the eyes of the law. But I doubt that will change your opinion. There is no such "restart" provision to self defense. Again, you are making stuff up an then acting as if it were fact.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "mister hoover"And trust, if I had just killed a kid for no good reason, I would headbutt the pavement too and make sure it was self defense ;)

And there's exactly as much evidence for that as there is that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

You mean OTHER THAN GZ's broken nose and split skull? And again, it's largely irrelevant who attacked who. When TM continued to pursue the beating past the point where GZ was no longer a threat to him, that's when it became assault.

Honestly, this has entered the realm of the ridiculous. Even facts in GZs favor that are supported by evidence are ignored or questioned, and yet, any hypothetical explanation that supports TMs total innocence is immediately and unquestioningly accepted as fact, even though it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It's a bizarro-world double standard.

Starting to sound a lot like a religion to me. Facts and evidence? Who needs those when we know the truth in our hearts?

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Seabear"Heard an interesting point from a relative (who happens to be a judge); thought I would see what the forum thought about it. Not sure it's been brought up before. If so apologies.

From what I understood, in a self defense situation, you only have the right to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself. If you continue the beating your assailant after you have ended the threat, then self defense no longer applies.  In other words, just because someone else starts it, that doesn't give a person the right to beat that person as much or as long or as badly as they want.

So even if GZ did swing first and TM defended himself, his legal right to self defense ended when he mounted a prone GZ to continue the beating when he no longer posed a threat to him.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind, but it does speak to how difficult TMs own actions made it to convict GZ of wrongdoing. Thoughts?




Also, not sure why all the buzz about the "SYG" laws in the media. From what I have read, SYG was not used in any part of this case. GZ waived his right to a pretrial SYG hearing.

So where does the shooting an unarmed someone in the heart fall in this self defense scenario?

Fair question. Let me answer it with another. If an unarmed person who is bigger and stronger than you is on top of you beating you and pounding your head on the concrete, and you have no other way of making them stop, how much damage do you feel like you are obliged to let them do to your skull? I mean, since they are unarmed.

Not saying that makes it okay, but I don't think that it's reasonable to judge the entire conflict based on the final outcome alone. In fairness, you must consider everything that lead up to it.

So given that it stopped being self defense after TM continued to pursue beating a prone GZ, how do you reconcile that with your opinion that GZ was totally at fault here?

Your entire post is based on supposition. We don't know these things as fact.

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "mister hoover"And trust, if I had just killed a kid for no good reason, I would headbutt the pavement too and make sure it was self defense ;)

And there's exactly as much evidence for that as there is that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

You mean OTHER THAN GZ's broken nose and split skull? And again, it's largely irrelevant who attacked who. When TM continued to pursue the beating past the point where GZ was no longer a threat to him, that's when it became assault.

Honestly, this has entered the realm of the ridiculous. Even facts in GZs favor that are supported by evidence are ignored or questioned, and yet, any hypothetical explanation that supports TMs total innocence is immediately and unquestioningly accepted as fact, even though it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It's a bizarro-world double standard.

Starting to sound a lot like a religion to me. Facts and evidence? Who needs those when we know the truth in our hearts?

Wait what?  When exactly did Martin beat Zimmerman to the point he was no longer a threat?  Because, forgive me if I'm wrong here, I'm pretty sure he proved he was still a serious threat when he shot Martin to death.  Therefore, Martin never beat him to the point you claim.

QuoteWait what? When exactly did Martin beat Zimmerman to the point he was no longer a threat? Because, forgive me if I'm wrong here, I'm pretty sure he proved he was still a serious threat when he shot Martin to death. Therefore, Martin never beat him to the point you claim.

He also had two minor scratches on the back of his head and a broken nose; that is hardly being beaten to a pulp and half to death.

This, "Martin beat Zimmerman to the brink of death" is coming from the mouth of the guy who shot him... the same guy that said his head was slammed against the concrete 29 times, was being choked, was having his gun grabbed, was having his arms pinned to the ground and was being mounted. Now, I don't know if Martin was also an octopus, but that is a little fishy.

Also... where exactly is the concrete he was slamming his head against?

(//http://thisblksistaspage.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/trayvons-body-shown1.jpg)

And does this really look like "life-threatening" injuries to you?

(//http://www.blacknews.com/images/george_zimmerman_injury.jpg)

Finally, he was pursued for a while... including past the house he was staying at. Now if someone is chasing me, I am not going to go into my house either and let the guy know exactly where I live.

(//http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing-v-2.jpg?w=584)

Quote from: "Shiranu"[
And does this really look like "life-threatening" injuries to you?

[ Image (//http://www.blacknews.com/images/george_zimmerman_injury.jpg) ]

In all fairness to that, I have walked ( at a slow pace) into many a steel girder in my day and I can assure you it will scramble your brain, has immense pain, and had a very immediate raging reaction, all without a trace of blood. if my head was hit hard enough to bleed, I can assure you that I would not be rational at all. Others perhaps, but not me.

QuoteAnd does this really look like "life-threatening" injuries to you?

Dude what do you want to see? A piece of his skull missing? The back of his head caved in? How many times would you let someone slam your head into the pavement before deciding you were in mortal danger? If your answer is anything but one you are so totally full of shit.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteAnd does this really look like "life-threatening" injuries to you?

Dude what do you want to see? A piece of his skull missing? The back of his head caved in? How many times would you let someone slam your head into the pavement before deciding you were in mortal danger? If your answer is anything but one you are so totally full of shit.

No, but I have seen people who have been beaten to a pulp and who's lives were ACTUALLY at risk, and they sure as fuck don't look like that.

And he has two baby scratches on the back of his head... if he was having his head slammed in, it was some really mild slamming. Looks more like scratches than blunt trauma.

Finally, again... where was the concrete? If he was being slammed against the concrete, why was the body way in the yard? Did he pick up and drag the body from the street into the yard?

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteAnd does this really look like "life-threatening" injuries to you?

Dude what do you want to see? A piece of his skull missing? The back of his head caved in? How many times would you let someone slam your head into the pavement before deciding you were in mortal danger? If your answer is anything but one you are so totally full of shit.

No, but I have seen people who have been beaten to a pulp and who's lives were ACTUALLY at risk, and they sure as fuck don't look like that.

And he has two baby scratches on the back of his head... if he was having his head slammed in, it was some really mild slamming. Looks more like scratches than blunt trauma.

Finally, again... where was the concrete? If he was being slammed against the concrete, why was the body way in the yard? Did he pick up and drag the body from the street into the yard?

So what you're saying here is what? That he should have let himself get beaten to within an inch of his life to be sure people would believe him? Theres no such thing as mild slamming when it comes to the head. The brain is pretty fragile and it doesnt take much of a shock to deal serious damage - damage that isn't always a compliment to how severe external injuries might appear to be.

As to your assertion that his body was "way in the yard" = BULLSHIT!

(//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg)

The concrete sidewalk is clearly only a few feet away from Martin's body. Its easy to see that zimmerman was getting he had pounded into the sidewalk, shot Martin, and Martin fell back a very short distance away from the sidewalk.

Sorry, that's pretty far.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[ Image (//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg) ]

The concrete sidewalk is clearly only a few feet away from Martin's body. Its easy to see that zimmerman was getting he had pounded into the sidewalk, shot Martin, and Martin fell back a very short distance away from the sidewalk.

His foot is facing the wrong way...

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[ Image (//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg) ]

The concrete sidewalk is clearly only a few feet away from Martin's body. Its easy to see that zimmerman was getting he had pounded into the sidewalk, shot Martin, and Martin fell back a very short distance away from the sidewalk.

His foot is facing the wrong way...

I was just going to say....

If that is the way the body landed, and is not moved, that places Zimmerman on the houses side, no where even near the concrete. How could he be actively getting his head hit on the pavement at the time he shot Martin, which is what Zimmerman claims?

You know, I never payed much attention to this case after hearing initial reports. I do not watch much news, so I was pretty ignorant as to the evidence, what exactly was said and heard on the 911 tapes, and I have never seen any crmie scene photos, etc. It is not my place to judge someone before a jury does.

This thread has been very educational though, and has prompted me to look up some stuff on my own, too. Martin did the thing you are supposed to do. He ran away, for a while to, before turning and confronting the armed person who continued to follow him.

This was a travesty of a case, in almost every respect.

I read the body was found face down, and the officer rolled him over to try and give CPR, but otherwise he was not moved. So your assertion that it is "clear to see" that Martin was shot and fell over backwards is false. The struggle happened right under where the body lay ( he shot him on top of him, then crawled out from under the body), about 6 feet from the pavement.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[ Image (//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg) ]

The concrete sidewalk is clearly only a few feet away from Martin's body. Its easy to see that zimmerman was getting he had pounded into the sidewalk, shot Martin, and Martin fell back a very short distance away from the sidewalk.

His foot is facing the wrong way...

I just had a brief glimmer of hope for humanity.

Quote from: "Aroura33"You know, I never payed much attention to this case after hearing initial reports.

Actually neither did I, this is a case only because a "white" guy shot a black kid. Even blacks admit this. Thousands of unarmed black men and young men have been killed over the last ten years and we don't see the protests we do know. It is only because of this one instance where a "white" guy did the shooting. Its racist all right... just not the in the direction everyone suggests it is.

I think, he thinks, we think, they think....the jury heard it all and it is what it is. My only objection to all of this is the contention that his intent all along was to hunt down a black kid and kill him and that his involvement as a neighborhood watch means that he must, at all times, no matter what, do nothing but phone the cops. I disagree with that.

Quote from: "aitm"In all fairness to that, I have walked ( at a slow pace) into many a steel girder in my day and I can assure you it will scramble your brain, has immense pain, and had a very immediate raging reaction, all without a trace of blood. if my head was hit hard enough to bleed, I can assure you that I would not be rational at all. Others perhaps, but not me.

I've whacked my head into things hard enough to draw blood more than once. So far every time its happened it hurt enough for me to feel the spot and therefore realize I was bleeding. But I never felt impaired at all by it. I certainly never felt like I my brain was scrambled by it or like my life was in danger. Shrug.

Quote from: "aitm"

Quote from: "Aroura33"You know, I never payed much attention to this case after hearing initial reports.

Actually neither did I, this is a case only because a "white" guy shot a black kid. Even blacks admit this. Thousands of unarmed black men and young men have been killed over the last ten years and we don't see the protests we do know. It is only because of this one instance where a "white" guy did the shooting. Its racist all right... just not the in the direction everyone suggests it is.

I think, he thinks, we think, they think....the jury heard it all and it is what it is. My only objection to all of this is the contention that his intent all along was to hunt down a black kid and kill him and that his involvement as a neighborhood watch means that he must, at all times, no matter what, do nothing but phone the cops. I disagree with that.

Zimmerman is half hispanic, and looks it.
I do see that he was accused of racial profiling, which it seems is at least partly true.

I disagree that this is only a big deal because a white guy shot a black kid. It appears there were only protests after police failed to even bother looking into the incident, taking Zimmerman completely at his word. People wondered, and it seems rightly so, if Zimmerman was being completely honest. It appears medical examaners say his injury is consistant with a single punch, not the multiple blows he claims.

Yes, the jury said so, but that does not make them correct. Hence the very real possibility of a civil trial.

I agree that Zimmerman probably did not intend to murder the kid, but his stupid, reckless stalking behavior is still the cause of this tradgedy, and he got off, NOT on evidence, but it appears on charcter witness testimony and prosecution mistakes.
//http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/05/us-usa-florida-shooting-case-idUSBRE9640UM20130705

Quote from: "aitm"My only objection to all of this is the contention that his intent all along was to hunt down a black kid and kill him and that his involvement as a neighborhood watch means that he must, at all times, no matter what, do nothing but phone the cops. I disagree with that.

I don't for a moment think his intention was to hunt down and kill anyone regardless of race. But I also think this case is prime example of why its a bad idea for untrained people to do more than observe and report when no obvious crime is in progress.

Quote from: "Johan"But I also think this case is prime example of why its a bad idea for untrained people to do more than observe and report when no obvious crime is in progress.

We have made our positions clear enough, we disagree.

Quote from: "aitm"We have made our positions clear enough, we disagree.

Indeed we do.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"[ Image (//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg) ]

The concrete sidewalk is clearly only a few feet away from Martin's body. Its easy to see that zimmerman was getting he had pounded into the sidewalk, shot Martin, and Martin fell back a very short distance away from the sidewalk.

His foot is facing the wrong way...

I just had a brief glimmer of hope for humanity.

Oh really? Did you?

Is that thing in the picture his foot? I didn't know Martin wore a size 479.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Oh really? Did you?

Is that thing in the picture his foot? I didn't know Martin wore a size 479.

Looks more like a size 10 or so to me.

If it isn't his foot, then what is it? Because it looks like a foot. And even if it isn't, he's way too far from the sidewalk to have slumped off of Zimmerman after being shot, unless Zimmerman just dragged him over there afterward.

The kid is almost 6 ft... I'm 5'9 and wear a 10.5 shoe.  I'd say his foot is closer to a 12 :-p

Maybe another angle will help.
(//http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1382212!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/usa-florida-shooting.jpg)

Quote from: "Jmpty"Maybe another angle will help.
[ Image (//http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1382212!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/usa-florida-shooting.jpg) ]

Well there you have it: It's a shoe.  Guess it must be size 479. :P

Jury was not isolated from the rest of the world, was allowed 2 hours of unsupervised time with family, as well as time at museums, nail salons and and steakhouses.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20 ... ed-access/ (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/)

Along with some other interesting things from the article...

QuoteHold on a second. The Sheriff's office did not take them away from their families, they had access to them over the weekend! However, they were carefully monitored to prevent jury tampering at least, right? To verify this statement, AI's own Dr. Mark Bear contacted them, telling us:

Just verified with Heather Smith, from the Seminole Country Sheriff's Office at 407-474-6259. She states, "Generally speaking, jurors serving on the Zimmerman trial were afforded two hours of visiting privileges with family of friends each weekend." I asked what she meant by generally speaking," and she states, "there were more opportunities afforded jurors but not all took advantage."

QuoteAnd, it turns out, there is evidence to find that jury tampering did happen, as Juror B37 discussed in her aborted book deal:

The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband's perspectives...

Her husband holding a perspective strong enough to write a book on the subject, given unsupervised access during the trial to his wife on the jury. Juror B37 has also admitted that the decision was reached with information not presented at the trial itself.

But tell me more about how the jury got nothing wrong, how the jury only made their decisions based on evidence presented and no personal bias. No, no... your completely right, I should respect the jury (even though they broke the law) and their decision (which one of them admits wasn't even made on evidence presented, and who has made several racist remarks in interviews afterwards). Tell me more about how its ME who has no respect for the law.

Wow, you guys are combo of Internet Perry Masons/Sherlock Holmes all rolled into one! One or two pics on the web and you found evidence that the police, detectives, prosecutors, judge and jury all missed. Amazing! And that's not all... You armchair attorneys also found evidence for jury tampering that everyone else missed. What the fuck is next, a conspiracy?

Seriously, if this hasn't been elevated to the levels of religious belief in the denial of any evidence to contrary, I don't know what has.

And all you screaming for justice for Trayvon... What would have? A lynch mob? Laying aside the law? Precisely under what law can we find GZ guilty? What exactly would salve your wounded consciences, the assignment of guilt by a popular vote? A change in the law? Which law? What change? What changes would you make to existing laws that would not and could not be abused? Our legal system and the rule of Law, though not perfect, is based in large part upon Blackstones formulation. Shall we just discard the entire thing?

See, these are the difficult questions that hysterical Internet blowhards like Shiranu will no doubt shrink away from once again. Because it is far easier to join the masses on thier moral high horses and scream for SOMETHING to be done than it is to actually offer up anything specific. It is easier to criticize than it is to offer anything concrete for which one can in turn be criticized.

My position is that this is a tragic unfortunate turn of events from front to back. Although it may hardly seem so, I try to play the devils advocate. And although I firmly agree a that Trayvon did not deserve to die, and that Both made many poor decisions that fateful night, based upon my flawed understanding of the law and the known evidence at this time, there is simply nothing with which we can find GZ guilty.

QuoteYou armchair attorneys also found evidence for jury tampering that everyone else missed. What the fuck is next, a conspiracy?

Oh, right. I didn't realize I wrote that article. And called the Sheriff's department to ask if it was true. And I also apparently was the person at the sheriff's who said it was true. It was ALLLLLL me. I guess quoting the juror and the sheriff's department means I made the whole thing up and just pulled it out my ass, ya?

Also, this is a new article... what if I told you new's doesn't always break 5 milliseconds after it happened? Shocking concept, I know!

QuoteAnd all you screaming for justice for Trayvon... What would have? A lynch mob?

Boy, that escalated quickly.

QuoteLaying aside the law?

Nope.

QuotePrecisely under what law can we find GZ guilty?

Well, he violated Treyvon's "Stand Your Ground Rights", for one. And maybe you haven't been paying attention, but people have complained that is the issue... the problem is the law worked exactly as it was written to. Just because the government say's murder is okay doesn't make it okay.

I take it you dislike what the banks have done to the economy, yes? Well...why? What they did has been deemed legal, so how dare you complain when they screw you out your money.

Or are you a complete hypocrite?

QuoteSee, these are the difficult questions that hysterical Internet blowhards like Shiranu will no doubt shrink away from once again.

Say's the guy who's entire argument was, "LOL NO, U STUPID! Evidence? LOL THAT MEANS YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP! LOLLOLLOL YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HANG ZIMMERMAN FROM A TREE OR DRAG HIM DOWN THE STREET AND STONE HIM!"

Yeah, I guess it's me who is hysterical... the guy saying that the law is broken and something needs to be done about that. Boy, that makes me one raving loony, I suppose.

:roll:

Please point me to the post that indicated someone wanted to lynch Zimmerman, or go around the law. I followed this whole thread, and even while disagreeing, most people have kept a level head, and not resorted to emotional ranting.

It does seem to be a miscarraige of justice, though I do not have enough evidence to say that with 100% certainty, I have enough to lean me over that side of the fence.

Calling those who disagree with you "on a religious level of denial" is surpassingly churlish. Try making more of an argument next time, instead of trying to discredit people who have some doubts with childish insults and straw man arguments that none of us has even remotely stated.

Thanks  :-D

Quote from: "Shiranu"Well, he violated Treyvon's "Stand Your Ground Rights", for one.

Violated his stand your ground rights? What the fuck does that even mean?

Quote from: "Aroura33"I followed this whole thread, and even while disagreeing, most people have kept a level head, and not resorted to emotional ranting.

Tell it to Shianu. That's at least the fourth time in these threads since the verdict that he has just made shit up to support his arguments.

QuoteViolated his stand your ground rights? What the fuck does that even mean?

I know you're not an idiot, so I'm not going to go into the details of stand your ground.

However if the law works as it says its should (you are not obliged, by Florida law, to run; you are allowed to "stand your ground" and confront someone who you perceive to be threatening you), then what Treyvon did was 100% legal. Even if he had KILLED Zimmerman he would have had a legal case that it was in self-defense from a threatening menace.

As such Treyvon had "Stand Your Ground" rights, or at the least a very strong case for them. It make's sense that, despite how much it was discussed, Zimmerman's defense never invoked this law because, again by Florida law, what Treyvon did was perfectly legal. Personally I think it's a stupid law, but while we are talking about, "How would  he be innocent with only the laws on the books"... there is your answer.

QuoteTell it to Shianu. That's at least the fourth time in these threads since the verdict that he has just made shit up to support his arguments.

Wow, apparently linking news articles now warrant's, "making shit up".

You know, I almost want to go back and delete my first sentence.

I also am getting an appreciation for why your side is so adamant in defending Zimmerman... apparently any evidence is therefor "making shit up to support your argument.". If that is the best you have against me, that the evidence shows the jury was not properly sequestered (which you might be interested to know is a violation of the law) or that apparently that WASN'T Treyvon posted before... well, thank you for making me feel that much more secure in my position.

Out of curiosity, what exactly have I been pulling out of my ass? Or is that too hard of question for hysterical Internet blowhards like the Zimmerman crowd? Oh wait... I just insulted you! Fucking damn it, everyone call a wammmbulance, it's only okay to say shit to people you disagree with; but if they say anything back we need a case of KY, stat!

Oh, and while I'm here... a "more legitimate" article on their "sequester".

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2286 ... uestration (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/22867871/2013/07/17/glimpse-into-zimmerman-jurors-sequestration)

Quote from: "Seabear"Wow, you guys are combo of Internet Perry Masons/Sherlock Holmes all rolled into one! One or two pics on the web and you found evidence that the police, detectives, prosecutors, judge and jury all missed. Amazing! And that's not all... You armchair attorneys also found evidence for jury tampering that everyone else missed. What the fuck is next, a conspiracy?

Seriously, if this hasn't been elevated to the levels of religious belief in the denial of any evidence to contrary, I don't know what has.

And all you screaming for justice for Trayvon... What would have? A lynch mob? Laying aside the law? Precisely under what law can we find GZ guilty? What exactly would salve your wounded consciences, the assignment of guilt by a popular vote? A change in the law? Which law? What change? What changes would you make to existing laws that would not and could not be abused? Our legal system and the rule of Law, though not perfect, is based in large part upon Blackstones formulation. Shall we just discard the entire thing?

See, these are the difficult questions that hysterical Internet blowhards like Shiranu will no doubt shrink away from once again. Because it is far easier to join the masses on thier moral high horses and scream for SOMETHING to be done than it is to actually offer up anything specific. It is easier to criticize than it is to offer anything concrete for which one can in turn be criticized.

My position is that this is a tragic unfortunate turn of events from front to back. Although it may hardly seem so, I try to play the devils advocate. And although I firmly agree a that Trayvon did not deserve to die, and that Both made many poor decisions that fateful night, based upon my flawed understanding of the law and the known evidence at this time, there is simply nothing with which we can find GZ guilty.

Dude, I'm not even in the "justice for Trayvon" camp, and even I think your post is ridiculous.

Quote from: "Shiranu"so I'm not going to go into the details of stand your ground.

However if the law works as it says its should (you are not obliged, by Florida law, to run; you are allowed to "stand your ground" and confront someone who you perceive to be threatening you), then what Treyvon did was 100% legal. Even if he had KILLED Zimmerman he would have had a legal case that it was in self-defense from a threatening menace.

As such Treyvon had "Stand Your Ground" rights, or at the least a very strong case for them. It make's sense that, despite how much it was discussed, Zimmerman's defense never invoked this law because, again by Florida law, what Treyvon did was perfectly legal. Personally I think it's a stupid law, but while we are talking about, "How would  he be innocent with only the laws on the books"... there is your answer.

I really wish you would get into the details because I don't think you understand stand your ground at all. It certinally does not apply when you intercept someone who is trying to leave.

QuoteWow, apparently linking news articles now warrant's, "making shit up".

Except I'm not referring to you linking news articles.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Except he lived in said gated community :P.

Quote from: "Shiranu"How many fucking times is it going to have to be pointed out he is neither neighbourhood watch NOR upholding their rules?

Quote from: "Shiranu"The fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference.

All things you have said during this debate without supporting links. Each of them untrue.

QuoteExcept he lived in said gated community

He was staying in it. If I am staying at my dad's friend's house for a period of time, not knowing when or where I am going afterwards, I consider that living there. And that house was in the gated community.

QuoteHow many fucking times is it going to have to be pointed out he is neither neighbourhood watch NOR upholding their rules?

Neighbourhood Watch booted him out after this came out and he WASN'T following their rules. That is 1/4th wrong at best.

QuoteThe fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference.

Except there was links of both Zimmerman and his wife lying to the court, so this one is just a straight up lie.

So 1/4th, maybe grant you 2/5ths since the living is a matter of grammatical interpretation. Considering the assumptions made by the Zimmerman crowd in this thread, I think I am doing pretty damn good then.

QuoteI really wish you would get into the details because I don't think you understand stand your ground at all. It certinally does not apply when you intercept someone who is trying to leave.

Funny... you started your comment off with something with no evidence (that Treyvon was the one who intercepted and assaulted Zimmerman [which goes contradictory to Zimmerman's story and the phone calls]), and then tried to pin the, "pull shit out my ass" on me.

[snark]Come on, now... projections and denial of evidence, or bending evidence to fit your own agendas? That sounds mighty like a theist.[/snark]

Edit: Shit, my bad... forgot what stand your ground implies...

Quote"Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.

Check.

Quote776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

#1, quite arguably, check. If someone is stalking me as Zimmerman did, I would be forced to assume he is either about to mug me, rape me, kidnap me or kill me. Those all fall under "imminent death or great bodily harm to myself" or "to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony".

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteExcept he lived in said gated community

He was staying in it. If I am staying at my dad's friend's house for a period of time, not knowing when or where I am going afterwards, I consider that living there. And that house was in the gated community.

QuoteHow many fucking times is it going to have to be pointed out he is neither neighbourhood watch NOR upholding their rules?

Neighbourhood Watch booted him out after this came out and he WASN'T following their rules. That is 1/4th wrong at best.

QuoteThe fact that Saint Zimmerman lied to the jury time and time and time again didn't seem to make a difference.

Except there was links of both Zimmerman and his wife lying to the court, so this one is just a straight up lie.

So 1/4th, maybe grant you 2/5ths since the living is a matter of grammatical interpretation. Considering the assumptions made by the Zimmerman crowd in this thread, I think I am doing pretty damn good then.

QuoteI really wish you would get into the details because I don't think you understand stand your ground at all. It certinally does not apply when you intercept someone who is trying to leave.

Funny... you started your comment off with something with no evidence (that Treyvon was the one who intercepted and assaulted Zimmerman [which goes contradictory to Zimmerman's story and the phone calls]), and then tried to pin the, "pull shit out my ass" on me.

[snark]Come on, now... projections and denial of evidence, or bending evidence to fit your own agendas? That sounds mighty like a theist.[/snark]

The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Of course you have little use for evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions of what happened that tragic day so you just pretend it doesn't exist.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: fuck Florida.

I wish I had your energy for this, Shiranu, but these guys tire me out. That's why I don't argue with theists.

QuoteThe evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Which of course is all fine and dandy, assuming...

A. The jury was properly sequestered.
B. A member of the jury didn't come out and say, "It wasn't just evidence presented that made me vote the way I did".
C. The jury is infallible.

Now, given A. and B. being both false statements that argument is highly unconvincing that I should therefor respect their decision. C. implies that the jury is infallible, or even remotely competent, which I think shows a complete naivety to the American judicial system's tract record.

Also, he was found not guilty of murder. The votes went as followed...
3 Innocent (one of which who said her vote was based on "non-presented evidence" and who was allowed several hours unsupervised time with her lawyer husband... who also had a book deal planned about THEIR time on the jury.)
2 Manslaughter.
1 Second-Degree Murder.

But somehow out of that you take that the court deemed Treyvon the guilty party. Interesting.

QuoteOf course you have little use for evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions of what happened that tragic day so you just pretend it doesn't exist.

Right. That's why I am the one linking things that happened that day and the jury's remarks afterwards. Oh, and that is still comical coming from the guy who just said Treyvon was the one who stalked on assaulted Zimmerman. Hmm, wonder how many more times that hypocrisy can be brought up before it gets old...

------------------------------------------------

Also, curious as to why a 6 person jury was chosen... is that normal? Shouldn't it...

A. Be an odd number?
B. Be 12 (if using an even number)? Isn't 6 small?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Let me explain something to you. When I made this very statement earlier in the thread, it was in response to people claiming this was a case of murder. (And not the case of "Morons Gone Wild" it actually was.) The way you're using it here is equivalent to saying "the law is the law," as if the law is some immutable divine force. News flash: laws are made by people. Both can be very smart and sensible, but every now and then you get one so stupid it defies all logic. This is one of those cases.

Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over. If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

I respect the fact that other people may have differing opinions about that. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not however entitled to their own facts, and this thread has been full of shit that just isn't true.

What the laws says about use of deadly force in defense is it is acceptable if a reasonable person is in fear of serious bodily harm or death. What is reasonable is a judgement call. The jury heard the evidence, and they made the call that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear and was therefore justified in the use of deadly force. Now please explain to me how that applies to your statement.

Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html)

Fact: expert testimony was that Zimmermans injuries were consistant with a single blow, NOT beating his head repeatedly into the ground. Yes, he still got hit once, but lets not just take someone at their word and keep repeating it as some sort of truth when actual evidence indicates it is not true.

Do you get to shoot someone you followed them, after they ran away from you, who finally felt cornered and turned around and punched you one time? Well, according  to 3 of the 6 jurrors, yes. Even half the jury disagreed, and initially voted to convict him of manslaughter. They continued to feel he was guilty of something, but were convinced the laws did not support it.
 Does that make the whole thing fine and dandy and errorless? No. It means there is a problem with the laws, or how the options were presented to them.

Also, I love how Zimmerman says he regrets nothing he did that night, because it was all part of gods plan.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html)

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over.

You don't have to be a medical professional to see that Zimmerman's injuries were extremely mild for someone "getting his head bashed over."

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

Except we know from Trayvon's phone call that Zimmerman confronted him, and that the fight started shortly thereafter. If someone has been following you, confronts you, and (being the deep south) is most likely armed, you have every right to attack them with any and all force necessary. My criticism of Trayvon in this case isn't that he attacked Zimmerman, it's that he clearly didn't attack with enough ferocity to incapacitate him.

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html)

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

The shooter got 40 years. There are two major differences in the cases. Witnesses, and a video.

Quote from: "Aroura33"

Quote from: "Jmpty"Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html)

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

I am sorry, but I fail to see any similarities. Firstly the "crime" is stationary, it's not going anywhere, call the cops and wait. Taking a gun over noise? Yeah, say hello butt buddy.

Quote from: "Seabear"Just because you can concoct a hypothetical scenario in your imagination that makes GZ the cut-and-dry bad guy doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality.

You've really been reduced to grasping at straws here in order to support your opinion, haven't you?

QuoteAssuming a witness, Martin would have had the right to use sufficient force to assure that Zimmerman couldn't restart the assault. Breaking his nose is less force than that. Going further than breaking his arm or leg would probably have been more force than was justified. But just knocking Zimmerman down doesn't end the threat.

You are 100% dead wrong in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of the law I spent years enforcing, I'm dead right.  Just knocking your assailant down, without causing any injury, doesn't end the threat unless he stays down and you have some means (like a firearm) to ensure that he doesn't change his mind and gets up and renews the attack.

QuoteThere is no such "restart" provision to self defense. Again, you are making stuff up an then acting as if it were fact.

The same stuff any cop will "make up" if you took the trouble to ask.  Leaving your attacker in a position to keep attacking you is less than sufficient force necessary to defend yourself.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

All this criticism of the performance of the justice system is transparent bullshit. If the exact same supposed dearth of evidence had been presented at a trial in which the jury concluded Zimmerman was guilty all your reservations would disappear.

In the end this is about the law working the way it was designed to work but not arriving at the conclusion some people here wanted it to arrive at. You guys only respect the law as long as it serves your own social tastes. You decided Zimmerman was guilty of murder, and when the facts of the case inevitably led to an acquittal, you didn't for a single moment stop and reflect on whether or not you had been hasty to arrive at your position. Instead you seamlessly transitioned into an assertion that the law needs to be changed, all because it didn't do what you wanted it to do.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over.

You don't have to be a medical professional to see that Zimmerman's injuries were extremely mild for someone "getting his head bashed over."

I realize that these Zimmerman threads are full of internet tough guys that can take a good whack on the head with no ill effects. To see if you are one of them I propose an experiment. Get a video camera. Take it outside and set it up so that it has a good shot of you laying on your back on the sidewalk. Now lift your head up and let it fall back onto the concrete. As soon as it hits start saying your alphabet starting at some random letter. Now check the back of your head. Is it bleeding? No? Try it again a little bit harder. Repeat until you have blood running from two different places. Were you able to successfully repeat your alphabet each time you hit your head? Yes? Congratulations, you are a certified badass. No? Congratulations, now you know how Zimmerman felt.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

Except we know from Trayvon's phone call that Zimmerman confronted him, and that the fight started shortly thereafter. If someone has been following you, confronts you, and (being the deep south) is most likely armed, you have every right to attack them with any and all force necessary. My criticism of Trayvon in this case isn't that he attacked Zimmerman, it's that he clearly didn't attack with enough ferocity to incapacitate him.

Do we really know that? According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony it was Trayvon that issued the first challenge when he asked Zimmerman why he was following him. That's not that much different than Zimmerman's story except in his version the question was followed by a punch in nose. Even then if Trayvon would have stopped there he'd likely still be alive. He could have turned around and left Zimmerman sitting on his ass in the wet grass. But the evidence says he didn't do that. The evidence says he mounted Zimmerman and began pummeling him. And that is where Trayvon Martin became the master of his own fate.

QuoteAll this criticism of the performance of the justice system is transparent bullshit. If the exact same supposed dearth of evidence had been presented at a trial in which the jury concluded Zimmerman was guilty all your reservations would disappear.

Right. Transparent bullshit.

Improperly sequestered? Bullshit.
Juror comes out and admits she made her decision based on "non-presented" evidence? Bullshit.
The fact that the only "evidence" is taken from a side who has an obvious bias in his favour? Bullshit.

I'm going to have to reuse my snark remark... all evidence contrary to YOUR preconceived notion are bullshit? That sounds mighty like a theist to me.

QuoteYou guys only respect the law as long as it serves your own social tastes.

So why do you have a problem with the drone strikes? Why do you have a problem with the banks ripping you out of your money and crashing the economy?

Both of those are deemed legal by the court of law and yet I have seen you complain about the first one and would assume you don't appreciate the second. Yet for some reason it is perfectly okay when YOU don't like the law because YOU disagree with it, but when other people have a similar sentiment it suddenly becomes a disipicible crime.

Quote...and when the facts of the case inevitably led to an acquittal...

Except one juror already admits her decision was influenced by "facts" that weren't even presented at the case... and a 3-2-1 vote (with one of the threes having her decision based on outside influences) is hardly "inevitable.".

Quote...you didn't for a single moment stop and reflect on whether or not you had been hasty to arrive at your position.

So... if a priest rapes a little boy, and the law says he did nothing wrong, will you still be here saying, "Boy... guess I sure was wrong about that pedophile! Silly me!". How come I highly doubt that?

QuoteInstead you seamlessly transitioned into an assertion that the law needs to be changed, all because it didn't do what you wanted it to do.

Well, that image was failing... so...

I think the law should be there to protect innocent civilians... fuck me, right?

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

Sorry but you haven't been paying attention Colanth. The juror that first spoke about the case said that they were convinced Martin started the physical altercation. You also don't have to lecture me about finding someone innocent. I've already explained to someone in one of these threads that juries don't find people innocent. Just guilty or not guilty.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"I realize that these Zimmerman threads are full of internet tough guys that can take a good whack on the head with no ill effects. To see if you are one of them I propose an experiment. Get a video camera. Take it outside and set it up so that it has a good shot of you laying on your back on the sidewalk. Now lift your head up and let it fall back onto the concrete. As soon as it hits start saying your alphabet starting at some random letter. Now check the back of your head. Is it bleeding? No? Try it again a little bit harder. Repeat until you have blood running from two different places. Were you able to successfully repeat your alphabet each time you hit your head? Yes? Congratulations, you are a certified badass. No? Congratulations, now you know how Zimmerman felt.

Sidewalk. Right.
(//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg)
Anymore bullshit you feel like repeating?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Do we really know that? According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony it was Trayvon that issued the first challenge when he asked Zimmerman why he was following him. That's not that much different than Zimmerman's story except in his version the question was followed by a punch in nose. Even then if Trayvon would have stopped there he'd likely still be alive. He could have turned around and left Zimmerman sitting on his ass in the wet grass. But the evidence says he didn't do that. The evidence says he mounted Zimmerman and began pummeling him. And that is where Trayvon Martin became the master of his own fate.

Right, slug a guy who might be armed, leave him there, run away. Definitely a smart idea. No, you stay there, and you hit him until he stops getting up. When you're unarmed and the other guy is armed, this is the only way to remove the threat. The only thing different I would have done in Martin's shoes is that I would have actually tried incapacitating/killing Zimmerman, not just hammering at him like an untrained idiot. But then, I'm an adult and actually have martial arts training; two advantages Martin did not have.

Quote from: "Shiranu"OMG how dare you blah blah blah

What was conspicuously absent from your post was a denial of what I was stating about your position. Instead of denying it, because you absolutely can't, you decided to try to turn it on me using issues that have nothing to do with this case or situation. A drone strike in another country has nothing to do with a domestic murder trial. A fictitious red herring seituation about pedophilia that doesn't exist doesn;t have anything to do with it either.

I'm completely correct about your reaction and you know it. So instead you tried to justify it.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I think the law should be there to protect innocent civilians... fuck me, right?

Yes fuck you, because that isn't what you're concerned about. You determine who is innocent and worthy of legal protection based not on reason, but on your feelings and initial snap impressions of a given situation. You decided instantly what had happened in this case when it first came to light 2 years ago. I know because I was there reading it. Not for an instant has your resolve wavered, not even in the face of media redaction, pictures of Zimmerman covered in blood, new info about Martin holding guns in photos and calling white people crackers. Nothing has shaken your steadfast certainty that Zimmerman is a racist murderer. Its pure zealotry. What a laugh that you would dare to suggest my outlook is reminiscent of theism when you are engaged in full blown reality denial, and have adopted the longtime tactic of religious zealots to change whatever they don't agree with.

"Your position is bullshit."

"Actually it's not, and here is the evidence as to why it's not."

"LOLLOLLOLOL NO U STUPID BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Okay, Kent Ham...

QuoteI'm completely correct about your reaction and you know it. So instead you tried to justify it.

Are you now. If your position is, "I believe the law should be there to protect innocent people, and doesn't deserve respect just because its the law." then damn, you got me coach. Congrats.

However, it is not a red herring; you are telling me...

1. "Respect the law, even if I disagree with it."
2. I respond, "Fine, then I will hold you to the same standard; respect the law, even if YOU disagree with it."
3. To which you respond, "LOL NO, IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN ITS SOMETHING I DISAGREE WITH!"

The difference is one is legal at a federal level, the other a state. That's it. The law stands that drone strikes are legal; so when you complain about drone strikes YOU are not respecting the law.

Likewise, there HAVE been priests who have gotten away with pedophilia, don't even act like that doesn't happen. And yet for some reason I don't see you saying, "Well golly gee, I guess these priests weren't raping little boys then! The law said they are innocent and that's good enough for me!".

So it's no red herring, you're just a fucking hypocrite.

QuoteNot for an instant has your resolve wavered, not even in the face of media redaction...

So let me get this right... one second I find Zimmerman guilty only because the media told me to... but now you are telling me the media was telling me NOT to find him guilty...

Okay, raving internet blowhard...

Quote...pictures of Zimmerman covered in blood...

I have posted those pictures, and if you think that is "covered in blood" than you haven't seen anyone get ACTUALLY fucked up. I have been covered in more blood than that and yet I didn't feel the need to shoot someone for it.

Quote..., new info about Martin holding guns in photos and calling white people crackers.

Oh, I see... so now I am suppose to find Martin guilty because of irrelevant information. Hmmm...

Quote...you decided to try to turn it on me using issues that have nothing to do with this case or situation.

Say's that, then does the same thing in his post several times.

(//http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=39248&d=1360918971)

QuoteNothing has shaken your steadfast certainty that Zimmerman is a racist murderer.

I'm sorry, but you are just a fucking idiot. I have tried about 5 different ways of responding to this, but all of them are incapable of expressing just how fucking retarded that comment was. The fact that you believe that's my position has shown just how far down the loony toon tracks you have gotten.

But no, everyone else is the racist, raving loony  blowhard...

Okay, Panasonic PT-AR100U...

You forgot to count how many different kinds of stupid his post was. How are the rest of us supposed to get a laugh out of this if you don't do that?

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"I realize that these Zimmerman threads are full of internet tough guys that can take a good whack on the head with no ill effects. To see if you are one of them I propose an experiment. Get a video camera. Take it outside and set it up so that it has a good shot of you laying on your back on the sidewalk. Now lift your head up and let it fall back onto the concrete. As soon as it hits start saying your alphabet starting at some random letter. Now check the back of your head. Is it bleeding? No? Try it again a little bit harder. Repeat until you have blood running from two different places. Were you able to successfully repeat your alphabet each time you hit your head? Yes? Congratulations, you are a certified badass. No? Congratulations, now you know how Zimmerman felt.

Sidewalk. Right.
[ Image (//http://elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elite-daily-trayvon-martin-body.jpg) ]
Anymore bullshit you feel like repeating?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Do we really know that? According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony it was Trayvon that issued the first challenge when he asked Zimmerman why he was following him. That's not that much different than Zimmerman's story except in his version the question was followed by a punch in nose. Even then if Trayvon would have stopped there he'd likely still be alive. He could have turned around and left Zimmerman sitting on his ass in the wet grass. But the evidence says he didn't do that. The evidence says he mounted Zimmerman and began pummeling him. And that is where Trayvon Martin became the master of his own fate.

Right, slug a guy who might be armed, leave him there, run away. Definitely a smart idea. No, you stay there, and you hit him until he stops getting up. When you're unarmed and the other guy is armed, this is the only way to remove the threat. The only thing different I would have done in Martin's shoes is that I would have actually tried incapacitating/killing Zimmerman, not just hammering at him like an untrained idiot. But then, I'm an adult and actually have martial arts training; two advantages Martin did not have.

No Hijiri, What you do is not slug anyone to begin with.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"No Hijiri, What you do is not slug anyone to begin with.

No Popeyes, what you do is not follow a guy against NHW regulations and police instructions and make him think he needs to do so in the first place.

We can do this all day, bud.

So if someone is following you, you punch them rather than try to get away first? Oh geeze, I didn't know I should just punch people, then ask questions later.

Quote from: "Shiranu""Your position is bullshit."

"Actually it's not, and here is the evidence as to why it's not."

"LOLLOLLOLOL NO U STUPID BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Okay, Kent Ham...

LOL when did you ever present evidence? Asserting your own fantasy about what happened is not the same as presenting evidence.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Are you now. If your position is, "I believe the law should be there to protect innocent people, and doesn't deserve respect just because its the law." then damn, you got me coach. Congrats.

Try "I want to be able to treat certain defendants differently under the law based on how I feel about them".

Quote from: "Shiranu"However, it is not a red herring; you are telling me...

1. "Respect the law, even if I disagree with it."
2. I respond, "Fine, then I will hold you to the same standard; respect the law, even if YOU disagree with it."
3. To which you respond, "LOL NO, IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN ITS SOMETHING I DISAGREE WITH!"

But thats just it Shiranu, I doubt you actually disagree with the law though I imagine you will deny it just to be contrary. What you disagree with is the outcome the law produced in this particular situation. Certainly I haven't seen you offer any suggestions as to how the law could be improved (though that could be because you are aware how much of a verbal shredding you would be opening yourself to by suggesting a change). Your primary beef is that the law didn;t work the way you wanted to, and like an irrational thoughtless child your snap reaction was to assault the law instead of considering the possibility that it worked exactly the way it should have worked and that you personally were wrong this whole fucking time.

As to those other situations you described, as I said before they are different. The drone strikes I'm not even sure are fucking legal. This is a super grey area. I feel pretty sure it isn't permitted for the Federal Government to assassinate american citizens. A lot of shit is happening outside the bounds of the law right now and this could easily be one of them. So that situation in my mind has nothing to do with a trial conducted properly in our justice system.

The problem with your pedophilia scenatio is you said "So... if a priest rapes a little boy, and the law says he did nothing wrong, will you still be here saying, "Boy... guess I sure was wrong about that pedophile! Silly me!". How come I highly doubt that?"

See how that works? See how you completely skipped past the part about whether or not the priest ACTUALLY DID IT? You do realize, I hope on some level, that not all allegations against priests are automatically 100% legitimate right? Just like when there are allegations that a non black person shoots a black person and they claim self defense, he is not automatically guilty. Right? You do know that right?

I want proof that priest raped that kid. No, I absolutely am NOT willing to put him away based on, frankly, nothing more substantial than the clergy's history of child abuse. I am not willing to judge a situation purely on the background history of similar crimes.

Quote from: "Shiranu"So let me get this right... one second I find Zimmerman guilty only because the media told me to... but now you are telling me the media was telling me NOT to find him guilty...

Okay, raving internet blowhard...

I was pointing out that even when the media made it clear they had misrepresented the facts and made a blatant attempt to stir up shit, your position on the issue didn't waver in the slightest. It had no effect whatsoever. You were still 100% sure Zimmerman was a racist murderer.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I have posted those pictures, and if you think that is "covered in blood" than you haven't seen anyone get ACTUALLY fucked up. I have been covered in more blood than that and yet I didn't feel the need to shoot someone for it.

You posted the tamest possible pictures you possibly could, where medical treatment had already been given and the intial blood had already been cleaned off. How about this picture?

(//http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121203083453-zimmerman-blood-story-top.jpg)

This was taken before paramedics applied any first aid. Marting punched him so hard his nose was disjointed. The paramedic had to pop it back into place manually. But thats neither here nor there. Your absolutely batshit insane position has been adn apparently remains that Zimmerman should have let himself get the shit beaten out of him enough to convince you that he had a good enough reason to defend himself with his weapon. Nobody is going to let themselves continue to get destroyed. Nobody is going to think "oh hey, better let him smash my head against the sidewalk a few more times in case they don't believe me".

Such a dumbass argument.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Oh, I see... so now I am suppose to find Martin guilty because of irrelevant information. Hmmm...

Legally irrelevant information is sure a fuck of a lot better than some of the fabricated conspiracy "facts" ive seen being thrown around here such as the repeated suggestion that all of Zimmerman's wounds are self inflicted.

Also, it ceases to be irrelevant when we are talking about why Martin would attack Zimmerman, which we were several pages back. Some people, perhaps you, have asserted that if Martin did attack Zimmerman, then it was justified because he was scared or something. When talking about his state of mind, the fact that he was a racist punk isn't irrelevant information because it opens up the possibility that Martin acted from a motivation other than fear.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I'm sorry, but you are just a fucking idiot. I have tried about 5 different ways of responding to this, but all of them are incapable of expressing just how fucking retarded that comment was. The fact that you believe that's my position has shown just how far down the loony toon tracks you have gotten.

But no, everyone else is the racist, raving loony blowhard...

Okay, Panasonic PT-AR100U...

Well fuck you too douchebag. Your head is about as dense as neutron star matter. You are totally blind to your own glaring faults. Your a goddamn dimwit Shiranu. An overly emotional, fact denying, head in the sand dimwit and its as simple as that.

*Mod* Let us all take it down a notch.....I can lock this as it looks its going to more shit fest than needed.  Perhaps the art of ignoring should be put to use. It is easy.

So you say.

I think you have already made a sufficient fool of yourself and everyone sees it, so my job here is done. Thank you for playing along :).

Edit: At nonsense, not you aitm.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"So if someone is following you, you punch them rather than try to get away first? Oh geeze, I didn't know I should just punch people, then ask questions later.

The quoting out of context is strong with this one.

just putting this here...

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/ba ... n_hel.html (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/22/george_zimmerman_hel.html)

Quote from: "wolf39us"just putting this here...

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/ba ... n_hel.html (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/22/george_zimmerman_hel.html)

irrelevant...we all know its a conservative tea party staged accident to gain sympathy for zimmerman....damn rat bastards

Quote from: "wolf39us"just putting this here...

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/ba ... n_hel.html (http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/22/george_zimmerman_hel.html)

I know, right? And I heard on fox news that Trayvon Martin Kicked a puppy once.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"OMG how dare you blah blah blah

What was conspicuously absent from your post was a denial of what I was stating about your position. Instead of denying it, because you absolutely can't, you decided to try to turn it on me using issues that have nothing to do with this case or situation. A drone strike in another country has nothing to do with a domestic murder trial. A fictitious red herring seituation about pedophilia that doesn't exist doesn;t have anything to do with it either.

I'm completely correct about your reaction and you know it. So instead you tried to justify it.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I think the law should be there to protect innocent civilians... fuck me, right?

Yes fuck you, because that isn't what you're concerned about. You determine who is innocent and worthy of legal protection based not on reason, but on your feelings and initial snap impressions of a given situation. You decided instantly what had happened in this case when it first came to light 2 years ago. I know because I was there reading it. Not for an instant has your resolve wavered, not even in the face of media redaction, pictures of Zimmerman covered in blood, new info about Martin holding guns in photos and calling white people crackers. Nothing has shaken your steadfast certainty that Zimmerman is a racist murderer. Its pure zealotry. What a laugh that you would dare to suggest my outlook is reminiscent of theism when you are engaged in full blown reality denial, and have adopted the longtime tactic of religious zealots to change whatever they don't agree with.

Yanno..............  you always scold me when I do that 'fuck you' thing.  Grrrrr.   Wtf?  Thought the 'fuck you' thing was on your 'thou shall not' list ??

You guys need to dial back a notch or twelve. EEgads  Why is this making SUCH fights between people? I do not get it??
eeeesh
 :shock:

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"So if someone is following you, you punch them rather than try to get away first? Oh geeze, I didn't know I should just punch people, then ask questions later.

The quoting out of context is strong with this one.

Actually I didn't quote at all that time, but for the hell of it I'll quote what I was referencing:

QuoteRight, slug a guy who might be armed, leave him there, run away. Definitely a smart idea. No, you stay there, and you hit him until he stops getting up. When you're unarmed and the other guy is armed, this is the only way to remove the threat. The only thing different I would have done in Martin's shoes is that I would have actually tried incapacitating/killing Zimmerman, not just hammering at him like an untrained idiot. But then, I'm an adult and actually have martial arts training; two advantages Martin did not have.

After which of course PopeyesPappy replied saying you don't slug someone in the first place, to which you replied "No Popeyes, what you do is not follow a guy against NHW regulations and police instructions and make him think he needs to do so in the first place.

We can do this all day, bud."

And then my comment came up.

Basically, to you it's ok to just slug someone, then try "incapacitating/killing" them because they're following you. You know, rather then trying to get away or finding out why the person is following you. So there, some context.

I mean, unless you think it's not ok to just hit someone...in which case you have an odd way of showing that you don't think it's ok to just hit someone.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Basically, to you it's ok to just slug someone, then try "incapacitating/killing" them because they're following you.

You clearly haven't been reading most of what I've said during this thread if you think that, and I don't feel the need to correct your dumbass conclusion. Don't read two recent posts by me in a 25 page thread and act like you understand my position. If it's too much of a chore for you to catch up on the thread, don't bother engaging me in conversation.

Ok, I read every post you made in this thread. This one is particularly nice:

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Except we know from Trayvon's phone call that Zimmerman confronted him, and that the fight started shortly thereafter. If someone has been following you, confronts you, and (being the deep south) is most likely armed, you have every right to attack them with any and all force necessary. My criticism of Trayvon in this case isn't that he attacked Zimmerman, it's that he clearly didn't attack with enough ferocity to incapacitate him.

As well as this earlier one:

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"One good reason might be, "It's the deep south, a guy is following you, he might have a weapon but hasn't brandished it yet, so beat him senseless before he has a chance to hurt you." Granted, that's probably not what I would do in Trayvon's place. Beating a man still gives him a chance to get his weapon. Strangulation is much more effective once he's on the ground beneath you, as is a quick jab to the throat if you have an opening. If you fear for your life, you shouldn't be picky about how you disable/kill the person beyond how quickly you can eliminate the threat.

This is assuming I picked a fight, of course; had I time to assess the situation I might try talking him down first if I thought I could. I don't know if Trayvon had that chance or not. Given that Zimmerman tried talking first (which we could hear through Martin's phone), I'm inclined to believe Martin had that chance. Since his first reaction was to attack Zimmerman up close, it's also unlikely that Zimmerman had his gun unholstered, much less pointing at Martin right then. Basically, the evidence suggests that Martin should have been able to engage Zimmerman in dialogue and establish that this was a misunderstanding.


Don't take that to mean I'm blind to Zimmerman's role in creating the situation in the first place. Just because it's not what I'm talking about at the moment doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.

So before you talk of trying to talk Zimmerman down, but later on you say you wouldn't have down anything different than Martin would have except for trying to incapacitate/kill Zimmerman more effectively. Well, you certainly are consistent.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"So before you talk of trying to talk Zimmerman down, but later on you say you wouldn't have down anything different than Martin would have except for trying to incapacitate/kill Zimmerman more effectively. Well, you certainly are consistent.

Right, because omitting part of a previous argument to expand on a particular portion of it obviously means that I no longer hold that position. :roll:

Come back when you have an argument.

I have followed this thread from the beginning and participated in it a fair amount as well. And after twenty some odd pages, I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that the four word thread title had it exactly right all along. The case against Zimmerman was weak. There is no way around that fact.

Do I think Zimmerman is innocent? I think he was found innocent so there's that. I do not believe that his account of what happened is really what happened. Too much fuzziness between what he claimed and what is known for me. But then again if Martin had survived the shooting, I don't know that I'd be inclined to believe his version of the events either. I think they were both guilty of making stupid choices. And there but for the grace of god go I.

I don't think anyone is qualified to say they would have done things different than Martin did unless they can know exactly what Martin saw that night and also what Martin saw every previous moment of his life. And obviously none of that can ever be known.

And for Zimmerman, the same applies. No one can know what was going on in his head. No one can know which parts of his story (if any) are accurate and which parts (if any) are not. Experts have testified that his injuries were not at all life threatening. But that doesn't mean he wasn't afraid for his life.

The bottom line is I have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty nor what it is exactly that might be guilty of. But I know that the case against him was weak and I know that was found innocent of the charges against him. And that is as it should be.

Quote from: "Johan"I have followed this thread from the beginning and participated in it a fair amount as well. And after twenty some odd pages, I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that the four word thread title had it exactly right all along. The case against Zimmerman was weak. There is no way around that fact.

Do I think Zimmerman is innocent? I think he was found innocent so there's that. I do not believe that his account of what happened is really what happened. Too much fuzziness between what he claimed and what is known for me. But then again if Martin had survived the shooting, I don't know that I'd be inclined to believe his version of the events either. I think they were both guilty of making stupid choices. And there but for the grace of god go I.

I don't think anyone is qualified to say they would have done things different than Martin did unless they can know exactly what Martin saw that night and also what Martin saw every previous moment of his life. And obviously none of that can ever be known.

And for Zimmerman, the same applies. No one can know what was going on in his head. No one can know which parts of his story (if any) are accurate and which parts (if any) are not. Experts have testified that his injuries were not at all life threatening. But that doesn't mean he wasn't afraid for his life.

The bottom line is I have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty nor what it is exactly that might be guilty of. But I know that the case against him was weak and I know that was found innocent of the charges against him. And that is as it should be.

It is true, the case against him was weak. There likely was nothing else the jury could do, even though half of them wanted to.

But let us be clear, he was not found innocent, he was found not guilty of the charges brought against him. It may seem like semantics, but there is a legal difference between innocent and not guilty. He may later be charged with different crimes concerning the same incident, and be found guilty of those, hence why they do not say found innocent.

Anyway, I think the difference of opinion  here mostly boils down to if that is indeed "as it should be". Some of the jurors initiallt agreed that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation unneccesarily, and was therefore guilty of manslaughter, due to negligent behavior. Apparently there is no provision in the law for initiation though. Who started it really turns out to be irrelivant. If you start a fight, and the other person causes you to fear for your life, you have a right to defend yorself.

Not sure how laws could be rewritten to close this pretty gaping loophole, but maybe this case will prompt lawmakers to try. Probably not though, as it seems most people agree with the laws as they stand.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"I propose an experiment. Get a video camera. Take it outside and set it up so that it has a good shot of you laying on your back on the sidewalk. Now lift your head up and let it fall back onto the concrete.

I have a better one.  Ask any first responder how bloody a scalp wound is.  You'll most likely hear "stuck pig" in there somewhere.  I can make a much bloodier mess of my head without suffering the slightest bit of inconvenience.  Go ahead - ask your favorite health care professional, then report back.

Zimmerman's "injuries"?  I do worse every time I stick my hand into a tomato cage to pick a few tomatoes.  (I was asked, the other day, by a cop in Walmart, while I was shopping, whether I was being abused at home.  I have long thin scabs on both forearms.)

He had 3 puncture wounds in his scalp.  Read the initial reports - he was treated at the scene by an EMT.  IF they even suspected a concussion - not always a serious injury, but what you get if your head is slammed into concrete - they would have transported him.  He had MINOR SCRATCHES - not something you'd sustain if someone were seriously trying to injure you, but something you'd get from rubbing your scalp on concrete.

All it boils down to is - for whatever reason - the prosecution didn't present any evidence that Zimmerman did anything wrong, so the jury correctly failed to find him guilty of anything.  I don't object to what the jury did, I object to what the prosecution did.  If they had such a poor case (no case, from what they presented), they should have bit the bullet, admitted it and dropped it.  If they had evidence enough to bring the case to trial they should have presented it.  (What they brought to trial wasn't enough evidence to have a stern talk with Zimmerman.)

But evidence of enough force that killing Martin was justified?  (That's what Zimmerman claimed.)  That's too funny for the Comedy Channel.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Colanth"In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.

Sorry but you haven't been paying attention Colanth. The juror that first spoke about the case said that they were convinced Martin started the physical altercation.

WHO hasn't been paying attention?  There was no evidence presented that Martin started it.  (There was no evidence presented, period, just Zimmerman's assertions and a few very minor injuries.  The phone transcript was mostly inconclusive.)  And the question isn't who started the PHYSICAL ALTERCATION, the question is who presented the first threat.  At that point, according to Florida law, the threatened person has the right to stand his ground.  (Not that I agree with the law - I think it's just an invitation to legalized battery.)

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"No Hijiri, What you do is not slug anyone to begin with.

So if you perceive that someone is a threat you just wait until he attacks you, in the hope that he won't?  People who do that often get the prefix "the late" prepended to their names.

Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"So if someone is following you, you punch them rather than try to get away first? Oh geeze, I didn't know I should just punch people, then ask questions later.

Martin asked the question first.  He asked Zimmerman why he, Zimmerman, was following him, Martin.  That's what you're supposed to do, right?  So if he asks he's wrong and if he punches without asking he's wrong.  How would he have been right?  Just letting Zimmerman do whatever he wanted to do?  (And we have no way of knowing what that might have been, but more to the point, Martin had no way of knowing, so he had to make a guess based on past history or white adult/black youth interaction in the south.  And that quite often resulted in the black youth no longer needing to worry about oxygen.)

(//https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1000124_608701529150264_565925040_n.png)

Edit: Actually fuck it. I'm jumping out of this conversation and will concede that I had nothing to add. Sorry.

Quote from: "Jmpty"[ Image (//https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1000124_608701529150264_565925040_n.png) ]

Hi emotional manipulation, I'm Tim. Nice to meet yOOOOOOHHHH WHY DID YOU STAB ME!!!??

I've been on the fence about this case for a while, but as it stands, my feelings are as such: George Zimmerman probably committed voluntary manslaughter, but there isn't quite enough evidence to convict. We don't really know what started the fight, but if Zimmerman either threatened Martin, started the fight, or made a move to start a fight, then he's guilty. I have a feeling that he did, but given the situation, there's no way to prove it. Following Martin alone is not enough. Self-defense by Florida law must be in order to prevent a felony, meaning Martin had to be reasonably certain a felony was going to occur, if it hadn't already. Whether or not being followed the way he was is a cause for reasonable certainty is a subjective question, although I'm inclined to say no. And that's where this conversation has come to: a bunch of irrelevant rehashes of past arguments, along with a shit slinging fest to see whose subjective opinion about the validity of Martin's actions under Florida law is better. And that is the very essence of a flame war. Didn't we have rules about that sort of thing?

Quote from: "missingnocchi"

Quote from: "Jmpty"[ Image (//https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1000124_608701529150264_565925040_n.png) ]

Hi emotional manipulation, I'm Tim. Nice to meet yOOOOOOHHHH WHY DID YOU STAB ME!!!??

8-) Bazinga.

Quote from: "missingnocchi"

Quote from: "Jmpty"[ Image (//https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1000124_608701529150264_565925040_n.png) ]

Hi emotional manipulation, I'm Tim. Nice to meet yOOOOOOHHHH WHY DID YOU STAB ME!!!??

If you haven't been keeping up you have missed multiple classic examples of argumentum ad absurdum.