Be a Supporter!

Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly

  • 17,234 Views
  • 838 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 02:38 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 10:51 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Here are the results of Trayvon's autopsy.

those results can go either way, that just confirms that there was a fight before the shooting. of course, Zimmerman's black eye, facial fractures and bleeding head tell the rest of the story.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 03:45 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 02:38 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 5/17/12 10:51 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Here are the results of Trayvon's autopsy.
those results can go either way, that just confirms that there was a fight before the shooting. of course, Zimmerman's black eye, facial fractures and bleeding head tell the rest of the story.

Those still don't guarantee that Martin started the fight or that Zimmerman was injured enough for him to have reasonably believed his life was in danger or that his actions prior to the fight were insufficient to hold him responsible for the fight. Convince a jury of any of these things and Zimmerman can be convicted of 2nd degree murder. The evidence that' probably going to have the most impact in the case is the second 911 call and who, experts say, can be heard on that call.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 03:47 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 03:45 PM, djack wrote: Those still don't guarantee that Martin started the fight or that Zimmerman was injured enough for him to have reasonably believed his life was in danger.

Two black eyes. Fractured nose. Getting head slammed against the ground. No signs of the other person letting up.

Oh yeah, you're in no danger at all.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 04:05 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 03:47 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/17/12 03:45 PM, djack wrote: Those still don't guarantee that Martin started the fight or that Zimmerman was injured enough for him to have reasonably believed his life was in danger.
Two black eyes. Fractured nose. Getting head slammed against the ground. No signs of the other person letting up.

Oh yeah, you're in no danger at all.

It only takes a couple of punched to do all of that. For all we know Martin punched Zimmerman a couple times, Zimmerman hit the ground then pulled out the gun and gave Martin enough time to beg for help before shooting him. Or Zimmerman intentionally antagonized the fight so that he would have an excuse to shoot Martin. Like I said, there isn't enough evidence to say that Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger or that Zimmerman wasn't the one who started the fight.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 04:09 PM Reply

Based on what has been leaked it's looking like Zimmerman will likely be found innocent. However we still have yet to see all of the records. Even though he may be innocent criminally, I believe he will lose the civil lawsuit, and society will hold him responsible, rightly so.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 05:20 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 04:05 PM, djack wrote: It only takes a couple of punched to do all of that. For all we know Martin punched Zimmerman a couple times, Zimmerman hit the ground then pulled out the gun and gave Martin enough time to beg for help before shooting him. Or Zimmerman intentionally antagonized the fight so that he would have an excuse to shoot Martin. Like I said, there isn't enough evidence to say that Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger or that Zimmerman wasn't the one who started the fight.

And for all we know Stefan and Damon from the Vampire Diaries are the ones who did all the damage, turned Trayvon, and then just compelled the coroner, the police, everyone who saw the body, the witnesses, and Zimmerman into believing what they currently believe. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Black eye+Fractured nose+Head being slammed against the ground (we know it wasn't just falling going off of the witness reports) is more then enough to reasonably assume that Zimmerman was in danger for his life.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 05:43 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 05:20 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Black eye+Fractured nose+Head being slammed against the ground (we know it wasn't just falling going off of the witness reports) is more then enough to reasonably assume that Zimmerman was in danger for his life.

There is still one missing element. When the gun came out. The minute that gun came out, any actions Martin took afterward would not give Zimmerman grounds for self defense.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 05:54 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 05:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There is still one missing element. When the gun came out. The minute that gun came out, any actions Martin took afterward would not give Zimmerman grounds for self defense.

It is highly improbable that Zimmerman had a gun drawn on somebody at close range and got beaten as badly as he did before any shot went off.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 06:34 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 05:20 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/17/12 04:05 PM, djack wrote: It only takes a couple of punched to do all of that. For all we know Martin punched Zimmerman a couple times, Zimmerman hit the ground then pulled out the gun and gave Martin enough time to beg for help before shooting him. Or Zimmerman intentionally antagonized the fight so that he would have an excuse to shoot Martin. Like I said, there isn't enough evidence to say that Zimmerman reasonably believed his life was in danger or that Zimmerman wasn't the one who started the fight.
And for all we know Stefan and Damon from the Vampire Diaries are the ones who did all the damage, turned Trayvon, and then just compelled the coroner, the police, everyone who saw the body, the witnesses, and Zimmerman into believing what they currently believe. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Black eye+Fractured nose+Head being slammed against the ground (we know it wasn't just falling going off of the witness reports) is more then enough to reasonably assume that Zimmerman was in danger for his life.

There's only one witness who claims to have seen anything and they only say they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. That witness has never stated that they saw how the fight started or that they actually saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head against the ground or even how long Martin was on top of Zimmerman. This whole head slamming thing is completely dependent on Zimmerman telling the truth. Zimmerman's story also claims his head was slammed against concrete but all evidence shows that the fight took place on the grass, should we listen to Zimmerman or the evidence on that? There's plenty of reason to suspect Zimmerman's story is false and one witness stating that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman without saying how long Martin was there or reporting seeing Martin attack Zimmerman at all is not enough to take Zimmerman's story at face value.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 06:43 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 05:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote: It is highly improbable that Zimmerman had a gun drawn on somebody at close range and got beaten as badly as he did before any shot went off.

Didn't have to be drawn, merely brandished.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 07:03 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 06:34 PM, djack wrote: There's only one witness who claims to have seen anything and they only say they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. That witness has never stated that they saw how the fight started or that they actually saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head against the ground or even how long Martin was on top of Zimmerman. This whole head slamming thing is completely dependent on Zimmerman telling the truth. Zimmerman's story also claims his head was slammed against concrete but all evidence shows that the fight took place on the grass, should we listen to Zimmerman or the evidence on that? There's plenty of reason to suspect Zimmerman's story is false and one witness stating that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman without saying how long Martin was there or reporting seeing Martin attack Zimmerman at all is not enough to take Zimmerman's story at face value.

There were a total of 3 witnesses. Two saying that it was Zimmerman on his back (well, person in red sweater), and one not being able to identify. It wasn't until a later date that one of the witnesses moms came forward and had the statement retracted. That still ends up with the eye witnesses corroborating Zimmermans story. The only witnesses who say otherwise did not actually witness the event and only say they believed it did not happen as described. Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, as evident by the one witness taking pictures after the event. What we have is multiple accounts verifying Zimmermans side of the story for that part, and none going for Trayvon except for people who only heard, not seen, the event take place.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 07:23 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 07:03 PM, RacistBassist wrote: There were a total of 3 witnesses. Two saying that it was Zimmerman on his back (well, person in red sweater), and one not being able to identify. It wasn't until a later date that one of the witnesses moms came forward and had the statement retracted. That still ends up with the eye witnesses corroborating Zimmermans story. The only witnesses who say otherwise did not actually witness the event and only say they believed it did not happen as described. Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, as evident by the one witness taking pictures after the event. What we have is multiple accounts verifying Zimmermans side of the story for that part, and none going for Trayvon except for people who only heard, not seen, the event take place.

I haven't been following this from the beginning but from the time this thread was started there's only been one witness and I haven't heard anything about a witness whose testimony was withdrawn. Do you have a link that backs that up? As for the rest of your post, I already pointed out that there's evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story (namely the fight itself occurring on grass where his head couldn't have been smashed against concrete). There's also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't start the fight which makes all the circumstantial stuff, like his history of racist statements and the fact that he followed Martin despite being told not to, very important to the case. Martin's girlfriend told the police that she heard Martin confront Zimmerman verbally which goes against Zimmerman's story. And, most importantly, we still don't know who was calling for help during the second phone call. If experts testify that it was Martin it would destroy Zimmerman's entire case and story as well as corroborating all of the auditory witnesses.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 07:35 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 07:23 PM, djack wrote: I haven't been following this from the beginning but from the time this thread was started there's only been one witness and I haven't heard anything about a witness whose testimony was withdrawn.

The wikipedia page for "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" has a lot of what you're looking for. There's 3 witnesses. There's a 13 year old kid whose mom came out and said that her sons testimony was coerced or lead or some shit like that, but only a couple of weeks after it was in the national spotlight when the coverage was at a high. Then there's the two other people, one who saw the man in red on bottom, and one who wasn't able to make out who was who but definitely saw shenanigans occur.

Do you have a link that backs that up? As for the rest of your post, I already pointed out that there's evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story (namely the fight itself occurring on grass where his head couldn't have been smashed against concrete).

My yard has grass literally right next to concrete, and a block over everyones backyard leads into a psuedo-alley sort of thing that has grass right next to concrete. As far as I know, they haven't shown pictures of the backyard where the incident happened, so this part is a toss up until we know the layout of the yard.

There's also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't start the fight which makes all the circumstantial stuff, like his history of racist statements and the fact that he followed Martin despite being told not to, very important to the case.

History of racist statements? Can you source me that? He was not told not to follow. He was not given an order. Even if he was, dispatch is not in a position of authority to actually give orders that affect the legality of actions.

Martin's girlfriend told the police that she heard Martin confront Zimmerman verbally which goes against Zimmerman's story.

You do realize that Martins girlfriend also has a close relationship with Martin, and she said that Trayvon was the first person to say something?

And, most importantly, we still don't know who was calling for help during the second phone call. If experts testify that it was Martin it would destroy Zimmerman's entire case and story as well as corroborating all of the auditory witnesses.

If experts testify? We have members of Trayvons family saying it was Zimmerman yelling, and we also have those experts have Zimmermans voice match at 48% with a shitty audio sample of the yelling. Auditory witnesses don't mean a thing when they have never heard either party speak before and they try to identify whose voice it was.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 17th, 2012 @ 10:26 PM Reply

At 5/17/12 07:35 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 5/17/12 07:23 PM, djack wrote: I haven't been following this from the beginning but from the time this thread was started there's only been one witness and I haven't heard anything about a witness whose testimony was withdrawn.
The wikipedia page for "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" has a lot of what you're looking for. There's 3 witnesses. There's a 13 year old kid whose mom came out and said that her sons testimony was coerced or lead or some shit like that, but only a couple of weeks after it was in the national spotlight when the coverage was at a high. Then there's the two other people, one who saw the man in red on bottom, and one who wasn't able to make out who was who but definitely saw shenanigans occur.

Even the wikipedia page you recommend says that the boy wasn't questioned until about a week after the incident occurred and has witnesses claiming that the police tried to get them to change their story to better fit Zimmerman's. The police could have gotten the kid to falsely identify the person on the ground as the one wearing red without even intending to. The third eyewitness claims there was not fight. And there's apparently a fourth eyewitness who says they heard Zimmerman and Martin arguing before the fight started.

History of racist statements? Can you source me that? He was not told not to follow. He was not given an order. Even if he was, dispatch is not in a position of authority to actually give orders that affect the legality of actions.

He tells other members of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on blacks and called the police 46 times in his time on the watch, many of which were reporting nothing other than the fact that there was a young black man in the neighborhood. Normal people don't call the police just because they see a black person.

Martin's girlfriend told the police that she heard Martin confront Zimmerman verbally which goes against Zimmerman's story.
You do realize that Martins girlfriend also has a close relationship with Martin, and she said that Trayvon was the first person to say something?

Part of my point was that Martin verbally confronted Zimmerman before the fight started. Zimmerman's family is close to him but I've never seen you questioning their reasoning for statements that make Zimmerman look good despite the fact that they've outright lied about Zimmerman's character during the indictment and were disproven by police records.

And, most importantly, we still don't know who was calling for help during the second phone call. If experts testify that it was Martin it would destroy Zimmerman's entire case and story as well as corroborating all of the auditory witnesses.
If experts testify? We have members of Trayvons family saying it was Zimmerman yelling, and we also have those experts have Zimmermans voice match at 48% with a shitty audio sample of the yelling. Auditory witnesses don't mean a thing when they have never heard either party speak before and they try to identify whose voice it was.

Actually, Martin's mother said it was Trayvon calling for help. "Martin's mother says the shouting for help heard on some of the 9-1-1 calls is her son's voice" Those auditory witnesses also stated that they heard Martin and Zimmerman arguing before the fight despite Zimmerman's official story being that Martin attacked him from behind while he was returning to his truck.

Since you want to use the wikipedia page as a source it also mentions that Wendy Dorival, the volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police, had spoken to Zimmerman about not following people and telling him to "observe from a safe location". So yes, he had been ordered previously by a police official not to follow suspects.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 10:51 AM Reply

First, read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmerma ns-version/story?id=16371852#.T7ZgVsWiY41
There's testimony from a witness 30 feet away from the struggle that Martin was attacking Zimmerman moments before the gunshot, and the autopsy showed the bullet was fired from 1 to 18 inches away from Martin's body.

How does the state get second degree murder charges from this? I'm not seeing it.

Are they really going to pin the entire case on cell phone testimony from Martin's girlfriend, the only evidence we know of that could suggest Zimmerman started the fight?

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 11:28 AM Reply

At 5/18/12 10:51 AM, adrshepard wrote: How does the state get second degree murder charges from this? I'm not seeing it.

The fact that Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin is enough to be charged with 2nd degree murder. since this was before the state knew the whole context of the events that happened i think it would be standard legal proceedings. But over the past few weeks it has become clear that Zimmerman will be found not guilty.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 11:33 AM Reply

At 5/18/12 10:51 AM, adrshepard wrote: First, read this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmerma ns-version/story?id=16371852#.T7ZgVsWiY41
There's testimony from a witness 30 feet away from the struggle that Martin was attacking Zimmerman moments before the gunshot, and the autopsy showed the bullet was fired from 1 to 18 inches away from Martin's body.

Old news. A great deal of other evidence has surfaced. I say you look at the articles less than 24 hours old, as the prosecution essentially had outlined much of its case plan an evidence in that period.

How does the state get second degree murder charges from this? I'm not seeing it.

Zimmerman shot Martin. Martin died. That is more than enough to proceed on 2nd degree murder. Self defense is an affirmative defense, by which Zimmerman must present prove at trial.

Are they really going to pin the entire case on cell phone testimony from Martin's girlfriend, the only evidence we know of that could suggest Zimmerman started the fight?

No, the Prosecution has 18 police witnesses and 23 (If I'm rembering the number right) other witnesses, to include experts and relatives and so on.

Just remember, the defense is playing the media like crazy. Everything that has come out since Zimmerman was arrested has been a calculated leak by Zimmerman's lawyers to attempt to make the public influence the trial before it even happens.

DoctorStrongbad
DoctorStrongbad
  • Member since: Oct. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 56
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 01:57 PM Reply

It will be interesting if Zimmerman is found not guilty.


I have a PhD in Troll Physics
Top Medal points user list. I am number 12

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 02:11 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Old news. A great deal of other evidence has surfaced. I say you look at the articles less than 24 hours old, as the prosecution essentially had outlined much of its case plan an evidence in that period.

Like what, I'm looking at article after article that say pretty much the exact same thing as what I linked.
The only other thing I've read is some lame idea that Zimmerman could have "identified himself as a concerned citizen" which would have instantly defused the situation, the implication being that "What are you doing here" is code for "Get ready to die, you piece of trash."

Zimmerman shot Martin. Martin died. That is more than enough to proceed on 2nd degree murder. Self defense is an affirmative defense, by which Zimmerman must present prove at trial.

Not true.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20000111&id=z TIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0c8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3187,4592337
http://www.register-pajaronian.com/v2_news_articles.php?head ing=0&page=72&story_id=12516
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19830204&id=X pIsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7232,1168839
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20120518/NEWS01/120518 008/Reynoldsburg-woman-fatally-shot-boyfriend-self-defense

Gee, I think I've been saying this all along.

Just remember, the defense is playing the media like crazy.

Ok, then, show me what evidence the prosecution has laid out publicly, as you said above.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 03:38 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 02:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Like what, I'm looking at article after article that say pretty much the exact same thing as what I linked.

Read any recent articles?

Gee, I think I've been saying this all along.

You really cannot see any difference between four cases where the killers did not start the confrontation and one where the killer did start the confrontation?

Also, the standard for 2nd degree murder is not that high. It involves anything akin to a high level of recklessness or more. Confronting someone you believe to be a criminal in the middle of the night, whilst armed, against neighborhood watch rules, and against 911 advice is extremely reckless. It is entirely possible that it can cover the killing for the mere fact that Zimmerman started the confrontation that led to him shootin Martin, regardless of whether Zimmerman was in extreme danger at the exact moment of the shooting.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 04:29 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Read any recent articles?

Yes.

You really cannot see any difference between four cases where the killers did not start the confrontation and one where the killer did start the confrontation?

I don't see a difference because there is no difference. Talk is cheap. I walk up to any black person at any time and call him a big-lipped you-know-what and if he punches me in the face, he's guilty of assault. There's no evidence that Martin was ever in any danger that would merit him attacking Zimmerman. There's no law against starting a verbal altercation.

Also, the standard for 2nd degree murder is not that high. Confronting someone you believe to be a criminal in the middle of the night

Is something a fearless citizen would do.

whilst armed

Is something a fearless AND smart citizen would do.

against neighborhood watch rules

Which are completely and utterly irrelevant, as they are not legally binding and were devised by an arbitrarily formed organization. They can no more be used against Zimmerman than could the neighboorhood watch leader sue Zimmerman for not following them.

and against 911 advice

Come on. You're not as stupid as the thousands of people who have trumpeted this line on the comment sections of every news article on this case. "You don't have to do that," the words the dispatcher used in response to Zimmerman wanting to follow Martin, is not the same as "don't do that," [and to cover myself] unless there's some other alleged advice you're referring to.

is extremely reckless. It is entirely possible that it can cover the killing for the mere fact that Zimmerman started the confrontation that led to him shootin Martin, regardless of whether Zimmerman was in extreme danger at the exact moment of the shooting.

Only if it could be proven that Zimmerman did something illegal (like make a violent threat) that would justify Martin's attack.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 05:17 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 04:29 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't see a difference because there is no difference. Talk is cheap. I walk up to any black person at any time and call him a big-lipped you-know-what and if he punches me in the face, he's guilty of assault. There's no evidence that Martin was ever in any danger that would merit him attacking Zimmerman. There's no law against starting a verbal altercation.

But Zimmerman recklessly engaged in a confrontation that had a high chance of resulting in violence. That fact is enough to muddy the issue enough to send it to trial.

Is something a fearless citizen would do.

Fearless but stupid.

Is something a fearless AND smart citizen would do.

Fearless and REALLY stupid.

Which are completely and utterly irrelevant, as they are not legally binding and were devised by an arbitrarily formed organization. They can no more be used against Zimmerman than could the neighboorhood watch leader sue Zimmerman for not following them.

But the neighborhood watch regulations set the standard that a lawful person would not do. Zimmerman likely knew the regulations and actively chose to ignore them.

Come on. You're not as stupid as the thousands of people who have trumpeted this line on the comment sections of every news article on this case. "You don't have to do that," the words the dispatcher used in response to Zimmerman wanting to follow Martin, is not the same as "don't do that," [and to cover myself] unless there's some other alleged advice you're referring to.

Really? You're the one whose being stupid on this account. Who honestly thinks that that statement was not a avery clear attempt to get Zimmerman to stop? What do you think they were communicating with that statement? Why do you think they were communicating that? Just for fun? Just because they could? NO. It was an attempt to get Zimmerman to do the RIGHT thing and not pursue. Any reasonable person would understand this loud and clear.

Only if it could be proven that Zimmerman did something illegal (like make a violent threat) that would justify Martin's attack.

Not at all. That is not a requirement. You're making up rules. All Zimmerman had to know was the risk of a violent encounter, and then take actions that a reasonable person WOULD NOT TAKE. A reasonable person would not have pursued and confronted Martin, knowing that confronting a suspicious person in the middle of the night will not end well, especially if you are suspicious enough to call the police. Zimmerman's actions were very much unreasonable and very much ignored or flat out blew off the very high risk of his actions. Therefore we have recklessness. Intiating a highly dangerous confrontation whilst carrying a gun ups that to a pretty strong amount of recklessness.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 05:36 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 01:57 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It will be interesting if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

I would anticipate something akin to OJ. Everyone in America will know George Zimmerman's name and face and likely believe he's guilty resulting in Zimmerman spending the rest of his life as an outcast and probably in danger from groups like the New Black Panthers. He'll also probably lose the civil suit whether the murder charge sticks or not forcing him into a lifetime of debt.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 06:56 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 05:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But Zimmerman recklessly engaged in a confrontation that had a high chance of resulting in violence.

No, he didn't. There were a hundred different ways that confrontation could have ended that wouldn't involve violence. Martin was a human being, not some mindless wild animal. You're ignoring the fact that one of them chose to engage in violence.

Is something a fearless citizen would do.
Fearless but stupid.

Being stupid is not illegal.

Is something a fearless AND smart citizen would do.
Fearless and REALLY stupid.

What, protecting yourself in case something goes wrong is stupid? Counting on the potential criminal not to seriously hurt you is smart?

Which are completely and utterly irrelevant, as they are not legally binding and were devised by an arbitrarily formed organization. They can no more be used against Zimmerman than could the neighboorhood watch leader sue Zimmerman for not following them.
But the neighborhood watch regulations set the standard that a lawful person would not do.

According to who? The neighborhood watch committee? Those regulations discourage confrontation because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are inherently illegal.

Really? You're the one whose being stupid on this account. Who honestly thinks that that statement was not a avery clear attempt to get Zimmerman to stop? What do you think they were communicating with that statement? Why do you think they were communicating that?

They said that to make things easier for themselves. Cops don't want civilians getting in the way. If there's a crime in progress, police always recommend calling for help. But they don't forbid anyone from trying to put a stop to it because no authority states a person can't.

Zimmerman's actions were very much unreasonable and very much ignored or flat out blew off the very high risk of his actions.

And what if Martin had been a burgular or criminal with a violent history and things turned out the same, would you still demand Zimmerman be charged with murder? What if Martin were in the process of breaking into a house? Would you identify the burgular as the victim and the courageous citizen the aggressor and charge him with murder?

This is exactly the sentiment "Stand Your Ground" laws were meant to combat.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 18th, 2012 @ 08:04 PM Reply

At 5/18/12 06:56 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, he didn't. There were a hundred different ways that confrontation could have ended that wouldn't involve violence. Martin was a human being, not some mindless wild animal. You're ignoring the fact that one of them chose to engage in violence.

And? That doesn't change that Zimmerman recklessly engaged in a very dangerous confrontation while armed.

Being stupid is not illegal.

It can be, especially if it results in someone's death.

What, protecting yourself in case something goes wrong is stupid? Counting on the potential criminal not to seriously hurt you is smart?

There are two things here. Either Zimmerman brought a gun to a confrontation that very did not deserve one, thus upping the ante when the ante needed not be upped. Or Zimmerman actively knew how dangerous this could be and actively ignored it by engaging.

According to who? The neighborhood watch committee? Those regulations discourage confrontation because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are inherently illegal.

Um any sane person?

They said that to make things easier for themselves. Cops don't want civilians getting in the way. If there's a crime in progress, police always recommend calling for help. But they don't forbid anyone from trying to put a stop to it because no authority states a person can't.

That's more of a stretch than the other explanation, which is trying to keep civilians from unecessarily getting into dangerous situations (which is exactly what Zimmerman ended up doing). You can pretzel it all you want, but that dispatcher told him in a manner clear enough for the reasonable law abiding citizen to back the fuck off.

And what if Martin had been a burgular or criminal with a violent history and things turned out the same, would you still demand Zimmerman be charged with murder?

Yes. Zimmerman turned a harmless night into a killing. Plain and simple. I don't care who he was dealing with, because the view from Zimmerman's point of view would be exactly the same. The only thing that would change this is if Zimmerman somehow knew exactly who it was and their criminal history. Also, nowhere it is legal to kill in the defense of property (this does not include the castle exception, even though that technically isn't meant to protect the property).

What if Martin were in the process of breaking into a house?

That would change the circumstances greatly. Still, what a person has leeway to do in the protection of property is very different than in the protection of people. Though a good defense attorney would argue in that situation he believed the safety of the occupants to be in danger, even though that still requires something more.

:Would you identify the burgular as the victim and the courageous citizen the aggressor and charge him with murder?

Zimmerman was not courageous. Zimmerman was stupid. Zimmerman's overzealous impatience directly led to the death of someone else, when had he not acted, no one would have been hurt at all.

This is exactly the sentiment "Stand Your Ground" laws were meant to combat.

No this isn't. The one lady who shot her boyfriend in her home, and the guy who shoots his mugger are examples of what stand your ground was meant to protect. Stand Your Ground was not meant by anyone (outside of the nuts in the NRA) to be a free ticket to vigilantism. It also was not meant to protect a person who starts the dangerous confrontation only to find they bit off more than they could chew. If that were the case, there would be quite a few gang members in Dade County who would be glad to exercise this law.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 19th, 2012 @ 01:30 AM Reply

Too many things about this case bother me.

The prosecution did not go before a grand jury. why not? Seems pretty routine to take a case before a grand jury to get an indictment. was the prosecutor afraid the case was too weak? perhaps. Just imagine the shitstorm the race and poverty pimps would conjure up if the grand jury snubbed the prosecution.

Not only that, they found injuries in Martin's hands, and a hole in his chest, and that's it. They also found injuries on Zimmerman's face and back but not in his hands. did Zimmerman not get in a single blow? is Martin some sort of Kung Fu expert? Did Martin take Zimmerman by surprise?

the FBI wants to charge zimmerman with a hate crime. Can't imagine why. Has zimmerman just walked up to Martin and put a bullet in him, I could see it. However ,given how weak the case is turning out to be, I just don't see it.

Martin's father heard the 911 audio of the scream for help, and said it was not his son. Everyone also insist that it couldn't have been Zimmerman's voice. then who was it?

This case is weak. very weak. It won't be dropped though, and once it begins I fully expect Povery and Race Pimp #1 and #2 to be out in full force, threatening riots and all sorts of hell if Zimmerman is not convicted.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Kidradd
Kidradd
  • Member since: May. 20, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 19th, 2012 @ 01:46 AM Reply

At 5/19/12 01:30 AM, Korriken wrote: Too many things about this case bother me.

The prosecution did not go before a grand jury. why not?

because he wasnt charged with murder 1

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 19th, 2012 @ 01:53 AM Reply

At 5/18/12 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: stuff

Of course, you could take it a step further. the whole thing could have been avoided if Martin simply stated "I live up the road. I'm walking home from the store." Or perhaps if he just stayed home he would be alive today.

I'm sure by time you get this far you're frothing at the mouth in rage at me saying that he shouldn't have done something totally legal. On the other hand Zimmerman also broke no law in questioning Martin. A sprightly guy like Martin could have easily escaped from a guy like Zimmerman. Given that is the case, why did he find it necessary to jump on Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground? would it not be enough to knock zimmerman to the ground then run?

Martin got himself killed, plain and simple. there was plenty Martin could have done to avoid taking it to the point of it being a death match. he could have simply ran when he noticed a guy following him and called the cops. He could have simply explained to zimmerman what he was doing. if zimmerman attacked first martin could have hit him in the nose, or taken him to the ground (which he did both) then ran.

Instead he found it necessary to mount zimmerman and begin slamming his head into the ground to the point zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.

Also, they say it was martin calling for help. it took about 7-8 seconds from the first cry for help before the gun shot. Given that Martin was obviously winning the fight, that he was relatively unharmed, how did zimmerman get off a point blank shot? 3 seconds unless your reaction time is seriously slow, is plenty of time to at least begin trying to flee, at which point would have been a shot in the back, which would have sealed zimmerman's doom. however, this is not the case.

At first they said there was 2 shots. However, its been proven that only 1 shot was fired. Given the lack of injuries to Martin, there was no reason he couldn't have fled in 8 seconds.

You can foam at the mouth and scream for Zimmerman's conviction all you want, but the evidence is looking VERY good for Zimmerman and very bad for Martin.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 19th, 2012 @ 01:56 AM Reply

At 5/19/12 01:46 AM, Kidradd wrote:
At 5/19/12 01:30 AM, Korriken wrote: Too many things about this case bother me.

The prosecution did not go before a grand jury. why not?
because he wasnt charged with murder 1

so? when he older brother was accused of simple rape it went before a grand jury, and simple rape is a lesser charge than murder 2. of course the grand jury put a stop to it, given the prosecution had no case to work with.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly May. 19th, 2012 @ 08:21 AM Reply

At 5/19/12 01:53 AM, Korriken wrote: Of course, you could take it a step further. the whole thing could have been avoided if Martin simply stated "I live up the road. I'm walking home from the store." Or perhaps if he just stayed home he would be alive today.

So in other words it's up to the person who is followed and confronted to ensure that the confronter doesn't do something stupid? What happened to personal responsibility?

I'm sure by time you get this far you're frothing at the mouth in rage at me saying that he shouldn't have done something totally legal. On the other hand Zimmerman also broke no law in questioning Martin. A sprightly guy like Martin could have easily escaped from a guy like Zimmerman. Given that is the case, why did he find it necessary to jump on Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground? would it not be enough to knock zimmerman to the ground then run?

Where are you and adr getting this crap? NOTHING about recklessness requires the act to be illegal. Also, if Martin, in a different neighborhood felt like his life was threatened, as most would if a man with a gun confronted you at night, Martin had the right to whatever he felt necessary to disable his wouldbe attacker. This is why we need to know exactly what Zimmerman did and when the gun came out. It makes a huge difference.

Martin got himself killed, plain and simple. there was plenty Martin could have done to avoid taking it to the point of it being a death match. he could have simply ran when he noticed a guy following him and called the cops. He could have simply explained to zimmerman what he was doing. if zimmerman attacked first martin could have hit him in the nose, or taken him to the ground (which he did both) then ran.

And there were so many things Zimmerman could have done that wouldn't have resulted in him committing homicide.

Instead he found it necessary to mount zimmerman and begin slamming his head into the ground to the point zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.

Just like how Zimmerman chose to ignore the words of the dispatcher and the rules o f his neighborhood watch and follow a potentially dangerous individual at night?

Also, they say it was martin calling for help. it took about 7-8 seconds from the first cry for help before the gun shot. Given that Martin was obviously winning the fight, that he was relatively unharmed, how did zimmerman get off a point blank shot? 3 seconds unless your reaction time is seriously slow, is plenty of time to at least begin trying to flee, at which point would have been a shot in the back, which would have sealed zimmerman's doom. however, this is not the case.

Oi, I would figure you, of all people, would know the capabilities of guns. If you had someone following you, who had been following you for a while, who had a gun, what would you do? Run? Martin may have been fast, but I can guarantee you that bullets are still faster. If you look at where Martin was eventually shot it wasn't a treasure trove of hiding places. It was a long straight path with nothing to hide behind and no ways to escape laterally. it would essentially be a sprinting match between Martin and a bullet, who would win? Faced with a situation where you don't believe escape or hiding is an option, and a guy has a gun, what do you do? Stop the guy with the gun.

At first they said there was 2 shots. However, its been proven that only 1 shot was fired. Given the lack of injuries to Martin, there was no reason he couldn't have fled in 8 seconds.

8 seconds is not that long of a time.

You can foam at the mouth and scream for Zimmerman's conviction all you want, but the evidence is looking VERY good for Zimmerman and very bad for Martin.

I am not screaming for conviction and am telling adr that this case rightfully is going to trial (for some reason he seems to think that justuce only matters if it doesn't get in his way to actively use guns in a dangerous manner). I already said that I believe Zimmerman will be found criminally not guilty.