Trayvon Martin, One year later

[Shiranu]

Not really. My problem is that it sets a standard that you can stalk someone at night, and after disobeying police dispatch and leaving your vehicle, if you get in a fist fight you have the right to use excessive force.

I really could care less for the ethnicity or genders involved, I just think its a moron's position to try to justify stalking and killing people and that it shows no respect for what the law should be about (protecting people).

[Seabear]

Well, I think it's a morons position to try to justify assaulting someone and making it the fault of the person who got beaten up. Instructions of a 911 operator do not bear the compulsory force of law, nor does disobeying them automatically render you outside the protection of the law. It's completely irrelevant, and if you think it isn't then you are a fool who can't separate emotion form rationality.

Its utterly ridiculous that you are trying to say Trayvon would have equally justified in beating up a woman under the same circumstances. What about a child, should we be able to beat them up too, if the follow us at night? And how is the assailant supposed to know in an A Priori fashion that the person following them has disobeyed a 911 dispatcher are therefore free game? Your sense of fairness would result in chaos.

Zimmerman broke no laws, and his indictment is nothing more than a move to appease and defuse the public. All his defense team has to show to a preponderance of the evidence is that he felt he might be killed or seriously injured, and the judge could find him immune from prosecution under the "Stand Your Ground" laws. Since Zimmerman has the injuries to show for it, and evidence shows Martin was mounted on a prone Zimmerman beating him, this will not be difficult to prove.

Mark my words. It will be dismissed, the prosecution has no case.

[Nonsensei]

Im tired of this topic. We aren't getting anywhere and, as with anything else we talk about here, what we say has no effect on the actual result in court.

I really don't want to talk about this again unless they make more evidence available to the public.

Which probably wont happen until theres a verdict.

Either way it looks like Zimmerman and his wife are slated to do some time.

[Seabear]

FYI

Did George Zimmerman Ignore the Police Dispatcher, and Why Did He Have a Gun?
Jacob Sullum|Apr. 3, 2012 2:24 pm

Although it has been widely reported (by me, among others) that George Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a police dispatcher suggested that he stop, the recording of Zimmerman's 911 call leaves that point unclear. Zimmerman gets out of his SUV before the dispatcher asks (probably because the wind is suddenly audible in the background), "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says yes, and the dispatcher replies, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says "OK" and then dithers for a minute or so about where police should meet him, finally saying they should call him when they arrive, "and I'll tell them where I'm at." The dispatcher agrees, and the recording ends at that point. The implication that Zimmerman did not plan to stay put could mean he continued to follow Martin, although he claims (through his father) that he was only looking for an address so he could figure out exactly where he was. In an interview with The Miami Herald, Walt Zalisko, "a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida,...said it's implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly," declaring, "That's a lie right there." Maybe, but it's consistent with the confusion Zimmerman expresses during the 911 call:

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.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/03/did-z ... e-dispatch

So even though its irrelevant, this objection to Zimmerman's behavior is in reality ambiguous at best, and at worst, completely false.

And how ironic is it that this source can be found on  a web site titled 'reason.com'?

[Hakurei Reimu]

@Seabear: The reference to the dispatcher call was only intended to speak to Zimmerman's state of mind, not to make it out like he was doing something illegal by ignoring those instructions per se. The illegal part was using excessive force (the gun) against an unarmed person, whether or not he was attacked.

Johan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

Getting socked in the face is not "getting your face pounded in."

Oh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think being able to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself somehow translates into "mythical" fighting skills and then turn around and introduce some unfocused, unsupported, utterly theoretical and totally undetailed alternative hypothesis about how Zimmerman became wounded.

Bullshit walks. You are ascribing to Martin skills you have no proof that he ever possessed. And I still don't see any physical evidence that Martin even touched Zimmerman — that Zimmerman's bloodied nose was caused by Martin's fist. Not one speck of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands, for instance.

Now, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

See above and spin on it yourself.

Well, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

Yeah actually it FUCKING IS HOW JUSTICE WORKS. If you don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges against someone YOU DONT BRING CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

You mean the charges that Zimmerman isn't being put on trial for? Oh wait. He is being put on trial. Go fuck yourself.

I'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

No im pretty sure following someone on a public street is always legal. 100% of the time. Under all circumstances. Trying to call it staking is nothing more than a transparent, pathetic attempt to make it something more than it was.

Restraining orders will enjoin someone from getting within a certain distance of another person, even on a public road. You lose.

As long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

LOL wow. Cool story kid. How about having your skull pounded into the pavement? How much damage is acceptable before you can pull out your gun? Should zimmerman have calmly waited until he lost some teeth? Got a skull fracture? Please fucking tell me where that line is. I would love to fucking know the answer to that and as someone who knows fucking everything you should be able to supply me with it.

Apparently, sacrasm is lost on you. You were the one who brought absolutes into this picture, and now you're stamping your little feet and being whiny when I pull one on you. Grow up, child.

Really? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

I thought Zimmerman was following him. I would think that "keeping the guy in sight" would be part of that.

Im tired of this topic. We aren't getting anywhere and, as with anything else we talk about here, what we say has no effect on the actual result in court.

I really don't want to talk about this again unless they make more evidence available to the public.

Which probably wont happen until theres a verdict.

Either way it looks like Zimmerman and his wife are slated to do some time.

Okay, bye.

[Nonsensei]

HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Get over yourself.

[Hakurei Reimu]

HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Funny you should say that, I could say the same thing about you, the way you blow up a bloodied nose into an all-righteous curbstomp and somehow Martin never got so much as a speck of Zimmerman's blood on him. I tend to think that the person is bullshitting me at that point.

Get over yourself.

You first, Mister I'm-not-gonna-comment-again.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

Martin was on the phone to his girlfriend when the confrontation began.  Are you sure you want to go with the idea that Martin "jumped" Zimmerman?

[billhilly]

FWIW, the girlfriend is turning into a nightmare for the prosecution.  They've already caught her in a couple of pretty blatant lies under oath.  Looks like she might be doing some time for perjury.

[Nonsensei]

HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Funny you should say that, I could say the same thing about you, the way you blow up a bloodied nose into an all-righteous curbstomp and somehow Martin never got so much as a speck of Zimmerman's blood on him. I tend to think that the person is bullshitting me at that point.

Get over yourself.

You first, Mister I'm-not-gonna-comment-again.

Just a bloody nose.

Im tired of arguing about this issue but ill trash shitbags like you all day every day. Its my fucking bread and butter.

[mnmelt]

This is all just B S... Zimmerman got out of his car after being asked NOT to.. followed/stalked this kid and got confronted for it.. Then the appropriate reaction is to shoot him??.. Really??
Zimmerman "asked for it".. and the kid paid for it. The cops were already on their way.. He had NO REASON to get out of his car...!! None zero zip..!! He is not a racist though,.. just a bloated egotistical vigilante who is REALLY STUPID..!!
I predict he will get a verdict of involuntary manslaughter..

[Johan]

Johan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

I've seen people get their faces pounded in and I've also seen people take take a lucky blow or two to the nose during minor scuffles.

I sure as shit never saw anyone get their 'face pounded in' that looked anywhere near as healthy as this guy afterward.




And yeah sunshine, if you're in the middle of a scuffle/fight/nuclear war/whatever and you intend to use a gun, then you are MOST DEFINITELY to be expected to make that judgment accurately on the fly. Owning and using a gun requires something called personal responsibility. And based on your earlier too bad for the other guy comments, I'd say personal responsibility is a subject you could stand to read up on and learn about.

Now, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

And that proves exactly one thing and one thing only. It proves that Zimmerman had injuries to his face. It does NOTHING to prove how he got them. There are lots of ways he could have gotten those injuries that wouldn't involve Martins fists.

Really? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

So Martin jumped Zimmerman while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle? Because if your only intent is to follow so you can tell the police where he went, there is no need to get out of your vehicle.

[Seabear]

This is all just B S...

If by "BS" you mean using "reason" and "logic", as opposed to "appeal to emotion" and "special pleading", then yes, this is all just BS.

Zimmerman got out of his car after being asked NOT to..

Not true, refuted above. And, not against the law.

followed/stalked this kid and got confronted for it..

Assuming facts not in evidence, and an attempt at inflammatory misrepresentation of actual events, especially the "stalked" part. And, following someone is not against the law.

Then the appropriate reaction is to shoot him??.. Really??

Um, you left out a couple of events in your fantasy-world timeline... like the part where Trayvon started beating the shit out of him, split his skull open on the sidewalk, etc.

Zimmerman "asked for it"..

LMFAO, there is NO such thing under the law. No words you can say entitle someone to give you a free beating. Unless, you are trying to say that a lot of battered women "asked for it", too?

and the kid paid for it.

Yep, tragic; he surely didn't deserve to get shot, just as Zimmerman didn't "deserve" a beating. Just goes to show, resorting to violence is never the right answer.

The cops were already on their way.. He had NO REASON to get out of his car...!! None zero zip..!!

Not true, and... not against the law. Ironically, if Trayvon had had the same magical powers of prescience for which you indict Zimmerman for lacking, perhaps he would have known better than to assault an armed man?

He is not a racist though,.. just a bloated egotistical vigilante who is REALLY STUPID..!!

Inflammatory, appeal to emotion, unproven, and... still not against the law, even if true.

I predict he will get a verdict of involuntary manslaughter..

I predict you are going to be sorely disappointed.

[FaithIsFilth]

You don't know. So you can't with any veracity say that anyone struck the first blow. For all you know, it could have been Zimmerman himself.

Now, I read through the entire thread in one go, and I at no point noted in Trayvon's defenders any claim that anyone knew who struck the first blow, instead of trying out different scenarios for size. Indeed, some doubt that there was any "fight" at all. Their assignment of blame was based entirely on the testimony of the police dispatcher and Zimmerman himself.

Absent any police report that says otherwise, I don't think that this beatdown Zimmerman claims happened at all, and certainly not to the point where any reasonable person would think his life is in danger (he didn't go to the hospital to have his wounds treated). The only person who witnessed this beatdown has credibility problems, pure and simple.

Since I believe that the fight angle can be thrown out entirely, we're left with a aggressive man stalking then killing a boy who was minding his own business. To me, there's something wrong with that.

I know eye witness testimony is not everything and is not always reliable, but you're going to throw the fight angle out entirely when the fight was witnessed?

[youtube:18w04bxn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODGzTLA0JSg[/youtube:18w04bxn]

There have been conflicting reports about who is yelling for help, and it hasn't been determined for sure who it was (but the witness said it was Zimmerman). I don't necessarily think Zimmerman is innocent, but I see a lot of reasonable doubt. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence. He has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like I said in the last thread, what Zimmerman did was stupid (following Trayvon). But was it illegal? I can go into a bar and laugh at a group of bikers, which would be really stupid on my part and I might get a beating because of it. I can legally do that though. That's not anything like what happened, but I'm just pointing out that Zimmerman's stupidity doesn't necessarily make him guilty. The Trayvon supporters seem to be assuming that Zimmerman either attacked Trayvon or had it in his mind that he was going to detain Trayvon (possibly at gunpoint) until police arrived. Those are possibilities of course, but there was no history of Zimmerman either attacking a suspicious person in his neighbourhood, or trying to detain anyone at gunpoint.

I was told in the last thread that in Florida you can attack someone if you feel threatened, regardless of the other person's intent. What if someone got out of their car and jogged up to me to ask for directions, and I felt threatened? In Florida, I could jump them and bash their head in legally, and the person's head I bashed in is guilty for assault because they unknowingly made me feel threatened? We don't know that Zimmerman wanted to detain Trayvon, or that he gave Trayvon a good enough reason to attack him (not saying that I'm certain Trayvon started the fight). Maybe he wanted to detain Trayvon and maybe he didn't. There is reasonable doubt here because he doesn't have a history of detaining people at gunpoint.

During the beatdown, Zimmerman says his gun became exposed and Trayvon saw it and told him he was going to die. He says he shot him to save his own life. This very well could have happened. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, but it's a reasonable possibility and not something extremely unlikely to have occurred. With the evidence we have available to us at the moment, I don't think we can say George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Jmpty]

Voice analysis determined that it was not Zimmerman yelling for help. The reason he decided not to have a stand your ground hearing is because he would lose. From what I have seen presented, and the circumstances of this incident, I would be surprised if he gets anything less than 2nd degree intentional homicide. But, I have been surprised by verdicts before. In the end, it will come down to who is believable, and who isn't. Zimmerman has not done himself any favors in that regard. He might even plead out to a lesser charge. We'll see.