Be a Supporter!

Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly

  • 18,024 Views
  • 838 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-29 22:34:10 Reply

At 3/29/12 10:06 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 3/29/12 07:50 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Zimmerman confessed to shooting Martin. Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies. He did it. Now let's see if the defense can prove that he was in danger and defended himself accordingly.
At 3/29/12 08:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, the burden for arrest is probable cause.
Second, Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin. If that isn't probable cause for some level of criminal homicide, I don't know what is.
I can only guess neither of you checked my link. This is right from there:
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful.

This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?

His actions do provide probable cause. He followed Martin against the advice of the 911 dispatcher and against neighborhood watch protocol. He has a history of racist behavior and quite possibly referred to Martin as a coon while speaking with the dispatcher. At some point he left his truck for unknown reasons that directly led to an easily avoidable shooting. How is it that you don't find any of this suspicious enough to at least warrant a trial to determine whether his actions fit the claim of self defense?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 03:19:24 Reply

At 3/29/12 10:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?

Let's take a peek at FLA 776.012, which your link references to.

"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"

That resonably believes part? Yeah, that has to be proven by a jury. This makes the law completely circular and thus meaningless.

Even if it didn't, the facts here do not fit the mold enough to make a pre-trial showing that Zimmerman did in fact act in self defense. Probable cause isn't that high of a standard. The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin; that Zimmerman initiated the contact; the extremely minor injuries to Zimmerman; the eye-witness claims. Even in light of some evidence to the contrary, this present more than probable cause to proceed on a charge of some form of criminal homicide. Heck, the fatcs in the light most favorable to Zimmerman still rise to probable cause.

Face it. The police and the prosecutor pussed out. They had a job to do and they intentionally did not do it, because of the slight possibility they would get in minor trouble.

This should be going to trial and everyone knows it.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 09:59:11 Reply

At 3/30/12 03:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Face it. The police and the prosecutor pussed out. They had a job to do and they intentionally did not do it, because of the slight possibility they would get in minor trouble.

interesting theory. how would the police get in trouble for zimmerman shooting trayvon and them arresting zimmerman?


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 2012-03-30 11:54:42 Reply

At 3/30/12 09:59 AM, Korriken wrote: interesting theory. how would the police get in trouble for zimmerman shooting trayvon and them arresting zimmerman?

Subsection 3 of FLA 776.032 states that if a defendant is aressted, prosecuted, etc. and they should have been immune, the governmental agencies involved (police, prosecutors) will have to bear the costs of defending the criminal suit, as any costs (including damages) associated with any civil suit arising from the matter. ADR's earlier link only had subsections (1) and (2).

That may seem like a lot, but with insurance, and the ability to spread the costs it will really only hurt the specific office a little and the specific actor almost neglibly.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 13:17:56 Reply

I didn't know that you needed to prove that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order for them to be arrested and brought to trial. I thought that was what the trial was for.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 13:47:02 Reply

At 3/30/12 01:17 PM, MrFlopz wrote: I didn't know that you needed to prove that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order for them to be arrested and brought to trial. I thought that was what the trial was for.

Aresting only requires probable cause, which is a fairly low standard.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 15:29:51 Reply

At 3/29/12 10:34 PM, djack wrote: His actions do provide probable cause. He followed Martin against the advice of the 911 dispatcher

We've been over this. The dispatcher did not say "don't follow him," but, "you don't have to do that." Even if the dispatcher gave direct advice, Zimmerman would not be legally obligated to follow it.
Plus, you're implying that violence was the only conceivable outcome of Zimmerman approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing. I can think of a dozen non-violent ends to that situation.

and against neighborhood watch protocol.

Which is totally meaningless in the context of actual law.

He has a history of racist behavior and quite possibly referred to Martin as a coon while speaking with the dispatcher.

Irrelevant (and debatable; I've read at least one article that referenced a speech expert who believed Zimmerman said "punk"). Racism doesn't automatically lead to violent behavior and it doesn't make sense as a motive for a shooting. A person driven by hatred and an intent to kill someone wouldn't call the police first and then allow himself to get beaten up in the hope that it would look like self-defense afterwards.

At some point he left his truck for unknown reasons that directly led to an easily avoidable shooting.

No they didn't. A verbal confrontation is not illegal, nor does it always or even often lead to violence. The law doesn't care if Zimmerman left his truck to yell at Martin. Martin's physical attack predicated the shooting.

At 3/30/12 03:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/29/12 10:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: This is the law in Florida. Maybe what you're saying about all shootings mandate an arrest applies elsewhere, but not in this case.
So can we move past "this has to be put before a jury" and other claims?
Let's take a peek at FLA 776.012, which your link references to.
(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"
That resonably believes part? Yeah, that has to be proven by a jury. This makes the law completely circular and thus meaningless.

No, it doesn't. The justice system begins with the discretion of the police and prosecutors, who have to decide if there's reason enough to believe a person has committed a crime and proceed accordingly. The officers and investigators determined that Zimmerman could reasonably believe his life was in danger, and the critical portion of his account, the actual attack, was confirmed by at least one witness that we know of.

The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin; that Zimmerman initiated the contact;

I dont' see how either is relevant.

the extremely minor injuries to Zimmerman;

How about I break your nose and slam your head into the sidewalk? Then you can tell me that they are minor.
What do you expect someone to do in that situation? Sit back and hope the attacker doesn't strike hard enough to crack his skull? What if you had a gun and I decided to systematically break each of your fingers? If you couldn't escape, would you do nothing? A broken fingers isn't life-threatening, right?

the eye-witness claims.

Whose claims? The only person as far as I know who's said that Zimmerman struck first is Martin's girlfriend, which she didn't actually see but inferred through a freaking cell phone.

Even in light of some evidence to the contrary, this presents more than probable cause to proceed on a charge of some form of criminal homicide. Heck, the fatcs in the light most favorable to Zimmerman still rise to probable cause.

You clearly have no idea what probable cause is. Probable cause requires some indication of illegal activity. They didn't find it then and still haven't now. Unless you want to adopt some ridiculous conspiracy theory about the police secretly manipulating evidence , that's it. Case closed.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 15:41:14 Reply

At 3/30/12 01:17 PM, MrFlopz wrote: I didn't know that you needed to prove that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order for them to be arrested and brought to trial. I thought that was what the trial was for.

With the way Florida law is set up they don't need to be brought in if it is reasonably believed that they acted in self defense. Given the statement of the person who saw Trayvon on top beating Zimmerman (Unless Trayvon stole his sweater, got beat up with Zimmerman on top of him, Zimmerman taking back the sweater and then shooting Trayvon), there is more then enough to not have to formally arrest him or bring him in for more then questioning


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 2012-03-30 15:41:31 Reply

At 3/30/12 03:29 PM, adrshepard wrote: I dont' see how either is relevant.

In terms of self defense it is very relevant. He picked the fight, got a fight, and ended it with a gun.

How about I break your nose and slam your head into the sidewalk? Then you can tell me that they are minor.

Well, if you broke my nose and slammed me into the sidewalk, but I wasn't injured enough to have a bruise or an ounce of blood visible on me, then that sure as hell wasn't force enough to warrant deadly force in return. Proportionality. based on the video, the use of a gun was clearly not proportional.

What do you expect someone to do in that situation? Sit back and hope the attacker doesn't strike hard enough to crack his skull? What if you had a gun and I decided to systematically break each of your fingers? If you couldn't escape, would you do nothing? A broken fingers isn't life-threatening, right?

Attacker? Zimmerman picked the fight. All accounts have Zimmerman following an innocent boy and cornering him. Even if he were the attacker, the rule of proportionality means that you cannot escalate the level used first. if you escalate, it is no longer self defense. Based on Zimmerman's massive outweighing of the scrawny-but-tall kid, and the lack of any visible injury his use of a gun was way too much. That alone means that the self-defense prosecution bar does not apply.

You clearly have no idea what probable cause is. Probable cause requires some indication of illegal activity. They didn't find it then and still haven't now. Unless you want to adopt some ridiculous conspiracy theory about the police secretly manipulating evidence , that's it. Case closed.

Yeah, probable cause does require some indicia of illegal activity. Bringing a gun to a fistfight and killing someone is indicia of... drum roll... HOMICIDE. I'm not saying the police mishandled any evidence. I'm saying they were asleep on the job. Oh, and the person who doesn't know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause would best not claim that the man who has prosecuted people for crimes before doesn't know the law.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 16:20:16 Reply

At 3/30/12 03:29 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 3/29/12 10:34 PM, djack wrote: His actions do provide probable cause. He followed Martin against the advice of the 911 dispatcher
We've been over this. The dispatcher did not say "don't follow him," but, "you don't have to do that." Even if the dispatcher gave direct advice, Zimmerman would not be legally obligated to follow it.

It doesn't matter. He was still advised not to approach which makes the motive of his actions questionable and makes it possible that he instigated an avoidable conflict.

Plus, you're implying that violence was the only conceivable outcome of Zimmerman approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing. I can think of a dozen non-violent ends to that situation.

First, you don't know what Zimmerman did after exiting his truck. For all you know he could have gotten out and started shouting obscenities and threats. Second, I never implied that violence was the only outcome of his actions but had Zimmerman not followed then he never would have been in a position to shoot Martin. That is a fact. The best action Zimmerman could have taken was to not follow Martin but instead he took actions that directly led to Martin being shot. It doesn't matter if there were other ways that confrontation could have ended because those aren't the ways it did end.

and against neighborhood watch protocol.
Which is totally meaningless in the context of actual law.

No it's not. The point of neighborhood watch protocol is to keep people out of harms way. The only reason Zimmerman could have for going after Martin is if he had a valid reason to suspect that Martin was on that street for the purpose of committing a violent crime. There was nothing to indicate that Martin was a criminal and Zimmerman's only reason for suspecting him was that he was a black kid in a hoodie.

He has a history of racist behavior and quite possibly referred to Martin as a coon while speaking with the dispatcher.
Irrelevant (and debatable; I've read at least one article that referenced a speech expert who believed Zimmerman said "punk"). Racism doesn't automatically lead to violent behavior and it doesn't make sense as a motive for a shooting. A person driven by hatred and an intent to kill someone wouldn't call the police first and then allow himself to get beaten up in the hope that it would look like self-defense afterwards.

Racism opens up the possibility that this is a hate crime and puts this case in a position where it should be put before a jury to determine whether it was a hate crime or real self defense. Hate crimes are not the same as a crime of passion, they don't require acting on emotion without forethought. Hate crimes can be planned out ahead of time including setting things up so that you can avoid going to prison. The opposite is also true, hate crimes don't require intelligent behavior or careful planning. It's possible, that when Martin realized Zimmerman was following him in a truck and Martin started running away, that Zimmerman stopped thinking reasonably and decided he was simply going to stop Martin with or without the help of the police. The recording of Zimmerman's phone call also includes him saying "... fucking assholes, they always get away." You should also link to that article because I haven't heard that anywhere and listening to the tape I can hear a long u sound in the word (the rest would actually be intelligible if it weren't for the sound of air rushing by the speaker while Zimmerman chased Martin).

At some point he left his truck for unknown reasons that directly led to an easily avoidable shooting.
No they didn't. A verbal confrontation is not illegal, nor does it always or even often lead to violence. The law doesn't care if Zimmerman left his truck to yell at Martin. Martin's physical attack predicated the shooting.

It was raining at night and Zimmerman got out of his truck to chase Martin. At that point Martin could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense and have a better case than Zimmerman. If that verbal confrontation caused the physical conflict then Zimmerman is responsible for the conflict no regardless of whether Martin threw the first punch or not. Murder is illegal. If Zimmerman's actions really did cause the fight (that is the way things seem to be) he murdered Martin.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 16:37:51 Reply

At 3/30/12 04:20 PM, djack wrote: It doesn't matter. He was still advised not to approach which makes the motive of his actions questionable and makes it possible that he instigated an avoidable conflict.

He wasn't advised not to approach. He was told it wouldn't be necessary. There is a huge difference. It is possible he instigated the conflict, just like it is possible that Trayvon wasn't the kid he saw, and that somewhere along the line they got mixed up. But hey, speculation is fun.

First, you don't know what Zimmerman did after exiting his truck. For all you know he could have gotten out and started shouting obscenities and threats. Second, I never implied that violence was the only outcome of his actions but had Zimmerman not followed then he never would have been in a position to shoot Martin. That is a fact. The best action Zimmerman could have taken was to not follow Martin but instead he took actions that directly led to Martin being shot. It doesn't matter if there were other ways that confrontation could have ended because those aren't the ways it did end.

For all we know Zimmerman calmly approached Trayvon and Trayvon had to attack for a gang initiation. Yay for speculation? Second, Trayvon also would have never been shot if he didn't shout at Zimmerman and ran like his girlfriend suggested.Therefore, Trayvon was negligent. Wait, no, that's not how things work. If I get into an argument with somebody, they brutally attack me, does it mean I am not justified to fight back, perhaps with lethal force?

No it's not. The point of neighborhood watch protocol is to keep people out of harms way. The only reason Zimmerman could have for going after Martin is if he had a valid reason to suspect that Martin was on that street for the purpose of committing a violent crime. There was nothing to indicate that Martin was a criminal and Zimmerman's only reason for suspecting him was that he was a black kid in a hoodie.

You forgot to address the part when dealing with law.

Geeze, why wouldn't it be a little suspicious that somebody is walking slowly through a neighborhood he doesn't live in while it is raining out and at 7:00PM? I'd be suspicious too. Yes, even if it was a *Gasp* white kid.

Racism opens up the possibility that this is a hate crime and puts this case in a position where it should be put before a jury to determine whether it was a hate crime or real self defense. Hate crimes are not the same as a crime of passion, they don't require acting on emotion without forethought. Hate crimes can be planned out ahead of time including setting things up so that you can avoid going to prison. The opposite is also true, hate crimes don't require intelligent behavior or careful planning. It's possible, that when Martin realized Zimmerman was following him in a truck and Martin started running away, that Zimmerman stopped thinking reasonably and decided he was simply going to stop Martin with or without the help of the police. The recording of Zimmerman's phone call also includes him saying "... fucking assholes, they always get away." You should also link to that article because I haven't heard that anywhere and listening to the tape I can hear a long u sound in the word (the rest would actually be intelligible if it weren't for the sound of air rushing by the speaker while Zimmerman chased Martin).

You're overlooking the part where Trayvon is on top of Martin beating his head against the ground. If I call somebody a n**gger, that doesn't legally justify them to attack me, and it doesn't legally unjustify me to fight back, especially if literally seconds before I was trying to get police there ASAP.

It was raining at night and Zimmerman got out of his truck to chase Martin. At that point Martin could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense and have a better case than Zimmerman. If that verbal confrontation caused the physical conflict then Zimmerman is responsible for the conflict no regardless of whether Martin threw the first punch or not. Murder is illegal. If Zimmerman's actions really did cause the fight (that is the way things seem to be) he murdered Martin.

Not really. "Oh, that guy got out of his truck. Better shoot him." This is the logic the people who are defending Trayvons attack are using. If Zimmerman had cornered or indeed attacked him, that would be entirely understandable. But, with the facts being Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beating him, and no evidence to show that it was Zimmerman that attacked, that argument goes right out the window.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 17:30:48 Reply

At 3/30/12 04:20 PM, djack wrote: It doesn't matter. He was still advised not to approach which makes the motive of his actions questionable and makes it possible that he instigated an avoidable conflict.

Get this through your head: "You don't have to" is not advice.
You have no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight. Following is not provocation. Questioning is not provocation.

First, you don't know what Zimmerman did after exiting his truck. For all you know he could have gotten out and started shouting obscenities and threats. Second, I never implied that violence was the only outcome of his actions but had Zimmerman not followed then he never would have been in a position to shoot Martin. That is a fact. The best action Zimmerman could have taken was to not follow Martin

True, but in terms of law that doesn't matter. Going up to some hulking black thug and calling him a racial slur is not a wise decision. But it is not illegal. And if that black man attacks you merely for saying something, he is 100% at fault.

No it's not. The point of neighborhood watch protocol is to keep people out of harms way. The only reason Zimmerman could have for going after Martin is if he had a valid reason to suspect that Martin was on that street for the purpose of committing a violent crime. There was nothing to indicate that Martin was a criminal and Zimmerman's only reason for suspecting him was that he was a black kid in a hoodie.

So what? The community may decide not to recognize him as part of the watch anymore, which means jack shit. He doesn't answer to the neighboorhood watch board or whatever nonbinding, unauthoritative, and unrecognized group that the people living there decided to create.

Racism opens up the possibility that this is a hate crime and puts this case in a position where it should be put before a jury to determine whether it was a hate crime or real self defense.

It opens up the possiblity, sure, but there's nothing to support that it actually happened, and so no justification to make an arrest. The law doesn't care if he's a racist. For all we know, Martin took offense that some whitey would single him out and decided to make him pay for it. It's just as plausible because it's entirely speculative.

If that verbal confrontation caused the physical conflict then Zimmerman is responsible for the conflict no regardless of whether Martin threw the first punch or not.

Well, sorry, the law doesn't recognize verbal confrontation as a legitimate reason for a violent response. The only exception is spoken threats, and there isn't any evidence that Zimmerman made any, and therefore no reason to conclude or even suspect that Zimmerman picked the fight.

At 3/30/12 03:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In terms of self defense it is very relevant. He picked the fight, got a fight, and ended it with a gun.

You don't know that.

How about I break your nose and slam your head into the sidewalk? Then you can tell me that they are minor.
Well, if you broke my nose and slammed me into the sidewalk, but I wasn't injured enough to have a bruise or an ounce of blood visible on me...

Christ, are you an imbecile? First of all, you're referring to a grainy surveillance video which doesn't have the resolution to pick out a bruise on someone's skin. Second, that same video showed a giant streak in the back of Zimmerman's head, which is not just some graphic anomaly because it showed an officer going behind him and staring at the back of his head for several seconds. Third, do you honestly think that the police wouldn't at least let him wipe himself up before going to the police station? Fourth, the police on the scene reported that he had a broken nose and was bleeding from the back of his head (but you can't trust whitey, right? The popo always be lyin').

Attacker? Zimmerman picked the fight. All accounts have Zimmerman following an innocent boy and cornering him.

Cornering him against what? Yards? Show me any of those accounts.

Oh, and the person who doesn't know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause would best not claim that the man who has prosecuted people for crimes before doesn't know the law.

If you think some crappy video is solid evidence, if you think that fists aren't enough to kill someone, if you ignore the findings of law enforcement on the scene in favor of your own third-hand speculation, then you are a shitty attorney and the only person sleeping on the job was whoever hired you to represent the government.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 18:04:40 Reply

At 3/30/12 05:30 PM, adrshepard wrote: Christ, are you an imbecile? First of all, you're referring to a grainy surveillance video which doesn't have the resolution to pick out a bruise on someone's skin. Second, that same video showed a giant streak in the back of Zimmerman's head, which is not just some graphic anomaly because it showed an officer going behind him and staring at the back of his head for several seconds. Third, do you honestly think that the police wouldn't at least let him wipe himself up before going to the police station? Fourth, the police on the scene reported that he had a broken nose and was bleeding from the back of his head (but you can't trust whitey, right? The popo always be lyin').

Dense dense dense.

Zimmerman didn't just fight back here. Zimmerman didn't fist fight back and so happened to kill matrin. Zimmerman pulled out his gun and killed Martin. You know what is required in order to use deadly force as self defense? Serious injury or deadly force. Even if Zimmerman had some brusing, bleeding, and a broken nose, the fact that you cannot see it on the video means that the injuries sure weren't life threatening or seriously injuring.

In other simple words, his response was much too strong for the incident in front of him. In the light most favorable to Zimmerman, merely being on the losing end of a fist fight is NOT grounds to whip out a gun and shoot the other person. Zimmerman doesn't claim that Martin had any weapons. He doesn't claim that Martin had any cohorts teaming up on Zimmerman.

If you think some crappy video is solid evidence,

Solid enough to show that Zimmerman, even if he had some inuries that were just not able to be seen, was NOT even close to being seriously injured. (a broken nose is not a legally serious injury)

if you think that fists aren't enough to kill someone,

They are, but the mere use of them is not per se grounds for shooting with a gun.

Well, unless you are for the proposition that all fistfights could legally end in fatal and 100% intentional shootings. That's the only way Zimmerman could have been let off the hook in good faith.

There are many scenarios I could name that would make Zimmerman's intetional killing of Martin easily count as self defense, but none of them match the scenario, even if everything Zimmerman claims is right, and everyone against his position was wrong.

In the end Zimmerman must prove that what Martin had done, without weapons, in an open space, without accomplices, to a larger man who had been following him in the middle of the night, amounts to threat of a serious injury or death.

if you ignore the findings of law enforcement on the scene in favor of your own third-hand speculation, then you are a shitty attorney and the only person sleeping on the job was whoever hired you to represent the government.

Taking the high road now, aren't we?

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 18:16:01 Reply

At 3/30/12 06:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Zimmerman didn't just fight back here. Zimmerman didn't fist fight back and so happened to kill matrin. Zimmerman pulled out his gun and killed Martin. You know what is required in order to use deadly force as self defense? Serious injury or deadly force. Even if Zimmerman had some brusing, bleeding, and a broken nose, the fact that you cannot see it on the video means that the injuries sure weren't life threatening or seriously injuring.

Nope. The THREAT of serious injury or death. You know, kinda like having your head slammed against the ground. That's why if it's just a fist fight, you aren't allowed to. If you attempt to flee and they prevent you, you can. If you're on the ground getting hit in the head, you can.

The fact that people just can't seem to get it into their skull that head being hit against ground=threat of serious injury.

In other simple words, his response was much too strong for the incident in front of him. In the light most favorable to Zimmerman, merely being on the losing end of a fist fight is NOT grounds to whip out a gun and shoot the other person. Zimmerman doesn't claim that Martin had any weapons. He doesn't claim that Martin had any cohorts teaming up on Zimmerman.

"Well, that guys hitting my head against the ground multiple times while I scream for help. Better just wait for help." You're oversimplifying this if it was a fight. This isn't a mere fist fight. This is head getting slammed against the ground. Huge difference.

Solid enough to show that Zimmerman, even if he had some inuries that were just not able to be seen, was NOT even close to being seriously injured. (a broken nose is not a legally serious injury)

Yes, he was close to being extremely injured. That's why he would be allowed to shoot him. You know, the whole head being hit into the ground sort of thing?

They are, but the mere use of them is not per se grounds for shooting with a gun.

But bashing their head against the ground is grounds to put them under ground.

Well, unless you are for the proposition that all fistfights could legally end in fatal and 100% intentional shootings. That's the only way Zimmerman could have been let off the hook in good faith.

Herp derp let's keep calling it a fist fight to downplay the whole, you know, "head being hit against the ground" multiple times aspect.

There are many scenarios I could name that would make Zimmerman's intetional killing of Martin easily count as self defense, but none of them match the scenario, even if everything Zimmerman claims is right, and everyone against his position was wrong.

Odd, you have a weird view of what counts as self-defense.

In the end Zimmerman must prove that what Martin had done, without weapons, in an open space, without accomplices, to a larger man who had been following him in the middle of the night, amounts to threat of a serious injury or death.

No he doesn't. He'd only have to show that getting your head smashed into the ground constitutes as a threat and that he had no other option that didn't involve him hoping for the best. "well, that guy is attempting to forcibly take my clothes off. Better not shoot and hope he doesn't rape me since he hasn't actually done the act yet."


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 2012-03-30 19:01:51 Reply

At 3/30/12 06:16 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Nope. The THREAT of serious injury or death. You know, kinda like having your head slammed against the ground. That's why if it's just a fist fight, you aren't allowed to. If you attempt to flee and they prevent you, you can. If you're on the ground getting hit in the head, you can.

That's borderline. Getting your head hit against the ground just hard enough to get a small bruise is hardly a threat of serious injury. There needs to be something more, and Zimmerman has never claimed there was. He made the jump from losing a physical confrontation to killing way too quickly. Even then, it doesn't matter whether it would be found in the end that what Martin did constituted such a threat, nothing Zimmerman has claimed to this point has undone the probable cause needed to arrest and overcome the Florida Law.


The fact that people just can't seem to get it into their skull that head being hit against ground=threat of serious injury.

No it doesn't. It definitely can but unlike the presence of a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a group beating, it is not per se equal threat of serious injury. This is especially true when the inuries caused by said skull smashing are quite minor.


"Well, that guys hitting my head against the ground multiple times while I scream for help. Better just wait for help." You're oversimplifying this if it was a fight. This isn't a mere fist fight. This is head getting slammed against the ground. Huge difference.

It was a physical altercation. Only in very rare cases does a 1 on 1 physical altercation between strangers, who have no weapons, become automatic grounds for killing the other. Stanrgling is one of those cases. Hitting the other party's head into the ground is not. Zimmerman also has not claimed any other facts that may cause it to raise to that level.

Yes, he was close to being extremely injured. That's why he would be allowed to shoot him. You know, the whole head being hit into the ground sort of thing?

If Zimmerman has made any extra claims to that end, maybe, but he has not. All he has to show for the head smashing is some scrapes and some bruising.

But bashing their head against the ground is grounds to put them under ground.

Again, not always. There needs to be more than just a vague "he was smashing my head into the ground" accompanied by very minor injuries.


Herp derp let's keep calling it a fist fight to downplay the whole, you know, "head being hit against the ground" multiple times aspect.

And yet you keep downplaying that he responded by killing. Mere head smashing is not grounds for killing. I may have been grounds for Zimmerman to beat up , or otherwise employ nondeadly or seriously injurious force to stop Martin.

Odd, you have a weird view of what counts as self-defense.

Requiring the self defense act to be proportional to the threat is not weird at all.

No he doesn't. He'd only have to show that getting your head smashed into the ground constitutes as a threat and that he had no other option that didn't involve him hoping for the best.

He has a lot to show. First off, no witness clearly saw the whole event. If Zimmermand has initiated contact, then Zimmerman loses his self defense claim for any proportional act of force Martin used, such as attmepting to render an attacker unconscious so that escape can be attempted. Second, the wintesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, saw Zimmerman, apparently uninjured after the shooting.

Based on what Zimmerman has said, witnesses have said, and the police have said, there wasn't any act by Martin that automatically gave Zimmerman the right to kill him. If what the three groups have told us is the extent of Martin's actions, then there is clear probable cause to go to trial, where Zimmerman can prove to a finder of fact that Martin's actions actually did present a reasonable (key word there) threat of serious injury or death.

This doesn't mean that there isn't more information out there, however, I don't see why the maligned Sanford PD or Zimmerman wouldn't have presented it by now.

A final reminder, serious injury does not equal "getting hurt". Serious injury is akin to the loss of a vital organ. Nothing Zimmerman has put forward has established, even by a preponderance, that Martin's actions were leading that direction.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 20:34:23 Reply

At 3/30/12 07:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's borderline. Getting your head hit against the ground just hard enough to get a small bruise is hardly a threat of serious injury. There needs to be something more, and Zimmerman has never claimed there was. He made the jump from losing a physical confrontation to killing way too quickly. Even then, it doesn't matter whether it would be found in the end that what Martin did constituted such a threat, nothing Zimmerman has claimed to this point has undone the probable cause needed to arrest and overcome the Florida Law.

Getting your head hit multiple times purposefully against the ground, however, is a clear sign the person doing it intends to cause you harm. This isn't like he was just getting punched while still resisting. This is him getting his head bashed against the ground while he's screaming out for help.

No it doesn't. It definitely can but unlike the presence of a dangerous or deadly weapon, or a group beating, it is not per se equal threat of serious injury. This is especially true when the inuries caused by said skull smashing are quite minor.

Uh, yes it is. As I said, let somebody bash your head multiple times against the ground and we'll see how fast you change your perception about "serious injury." You do know that the brain case, while extremely hard, is that way for a reason? Spinal cord damage, brain damage, cracking the skull. All of these are serious injuries. You can take multiple boots to the back of your head and end up with relatively minor damage, does that automatically override the whole part about the person doing the damage having intent to seriously harm you?

It was a physical altercation. Only in very rare cases does a 1 on 1 physical altercation between strangers, who have no weapons, become automatic grounds for killing the other. Stanrgling is one of those cases. Hitting the other party's head into the ground is not. Zimmerman also has not claimed any other facts that may cause it to raise to that level.

Rape is only a physical altercation, and a lot of rapists don't kill their victims. Therefore, no deadly force isn't allowed because it won't cause serious physically injury.

Getting hit in the head is a very good way to end up with brain damage, a fucked up spinal cord,a coma, or a cracked skull. This isn't like getting punched, this is your head being repeatedly slammed while you are incapacitated. The differences in amount of damage is huge.

If Zimmerman has made any extra claims to that end, maybe, but he has not. All he has to show for the head smashing is some scrapes and some bruising.

That's because he was able to neutralize it. You have no idea how self-defense works do you? It's all about the other party showing intent. If somebody yells "I am going to kill you" and then attacks me, I'd be 100% justified in assuming he intends to cause harm. Let alone past the point of my head being hit against the ground.

Again, not always. There needs to be more than just a vague "he was smashing my head into the ground" accompanied by very minor injuries.

Except for the part where there doesn't.

And yet you keep downplaying that he responded by killing. Mere head smashing is not grounds for killing. I may have been grounds for Zimmerman to beat up , or otherwise employ nondeadly or seriously injurious force to stop Martin.

Oh, no, I fully acknowledge he put that young man under. Just like he deserved. "mere head smashings." Tell me, when was the last time you had that happen to you multiple times? It is a lot different then a normal fight.

Requiring the self defense act to be proportional to the threat is not weird at all.

Yes it is. Proportional responses end up with the weaker party fucked, not the one acting in self-defense

He has a lot to show. First off, no witness clearly saw the whole event. If Zimmermand has initiated contact, then Zimmerman loses his self defense claim for any proportional act of force Martin used, such as attmepting to render an attacker unconscious so that escape can be attempted. Second, the wintesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, saw Zimmerman, apparently uninjured after the shooting.

There was the witness who saw the beginning, with Trayvon smashing Zimmerman. Then we have that same witness with Zimmerman over Trayvon. I love this word: "If." When discussing the legality of things, then whoopsie, that argument means jack shit.

Based on what Zimmerman has said, witnesses have said, and the police have said, there wasn't any act by Martin that automatically gave Zimmerman the right to kill him. If what the three groups have told us is the extent of Martin's actions, then there is clear probable cause to go to trial, where Zimmerman can prove to a finder of fact that Martin's actions actually did present a reasonable (key word there) threat of serious injury or death.

"He was bashing my head against the ground while I cried for help. I was incapacitated. That shows that Martin had clear intent to seriously harm or kill me."

Oh shit, look at that, his defense in a nutshell. Seriously, let's meet up and let me start bashing your head against the ground. Tell me at what point you feel threatened and you're justified in using a weapon if you can't overpower me. You can't tell me to stop when you start bleeding from the back of the head since the ground will be wet and you won't be able to tell. No stopping based off of pain. You're also allowed to scream for help, but nobody is allowed to help you

This doesn't mean that there isn't more information out there, however, I don't see why the maligned Sanford PD or Zimmerman wouldn't have presented it by now.

Because there is no need to?

A final reminder, serious injury does not equal "getting hurt". Serious injury is akin to the loss of a vital organ. Nothing Zimmerman has put forward has established, even by a preponderance, that Martin's actions were leading that direction.

Oh geeze, the prime parts of your nervous system being in immediate danger by somebody bashing your head against the ground does not equate to a serious risk of getting hurt?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 21:09:56 Reply

At 3/30/12 03:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Well, if you broke my nose and slammed me into the sidewalk, but I wasn't injured enough to have a bruise or an ounce of blood visible on me, then that sure as hell wasn't force enough to warrant deadly force in return.

Yes it does.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 22:51:30 Reply

I don't see how you can dispute that the attack, as he has described it and as the police report and video indicated, was potentially life threatening and so didn't merit a deadly response.

Don't you think that repeatedly bashing someone's head against the ground can cause serious injury or death? If you admit that it can, isn't it reasonable to believe that your life is in danger if someone starts doing it to you? And if so, do you not recognize that Florida law identifies a credible fear of serious injury or death as a legitmate reason for using deadly force?

Forget the racism and provocation for now, just answer that.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 23:11:03 Reply

At 3/30/12 10:51 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't see how you can dispute that the attack, as he has described it and as the police report and video indicated, was potentially life threatening and so didn't merit a deadly response.

Don't you think that repeatedly bashing someone's head against the ground can cause serious injury or death? If you admit that it can, isn't it reasonable to believe that your life is in danger if someone starts doing it to you? And if so, do you not recognize that Florida law identifies a credible fear of serious injury or death as a legitmate reason for using deadly force?

Forget the racism and provocation for now, just answer that.

Against a hard surface with a real injury, yes. Against wet grass with no actual evidence of an injury (that shadow from one frame does not count as evidence of an injury), no. Guess which one is actually relevant to this case.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-30 23:47:58 Reply

At 3/30/12 11:11 PM, djack wrote: Against a hard surface with a real injury, yes. Against wet grass with no actual evidence of an injury (that shadow from one frame does not count as evidence of an injury), no. Guess which one is actually relevant to this case.

So, according to you, not only does the police officer in the video stare at the back of Zimmerman's head (where the magical moving "shadow" just happens to be) for no apparent reason, but whoever wrote the police report was lying about Zimmerman's injuries and somehow managed to coerce the entire department to go along with it, even now, a month later, when it's national news and even while police officials have already been forced to resign.

Is it even possible to argue against the least-probable explanation? How do you even begin to dispute the patently absurd?

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 00:11:13 Reply

At 3/30/12 11:47 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 3/30/12 11:11 PM, djack wrote: Against a hard surface with a real injury, yes. Against wet grass with no actual evidence of an injury (that shadow from one frame does not count as evidence of an injury), no. Guess which one is actually relevant to this case.
So, according to you, not only does the police officer in the video stare at the back of Zimmerman's head (where the magical moving "shadow" just happens to be) for no apparent reason, but whoever wrote the police report was lying about Zimmerman's injuries and somehow managed to coerce the entire department to go along with it, even now, a month later, when it's national news and even while police officials have already been forced to resign.

Is it even possible to argue against the least-probable explanation? How do you even begin to dispute the patently absurd?

All Zimmerman had to do was wipe some blood on the back of his head (it wouldn't even have to be intentional) and the officer at the scene would have thought he was bleeding but that doesn't make that police officer a medical expert. The officer in the video doesn't stare at the back of his head, he briefly looks (by brief I mean he stopped after only about 1 second of looking at the back of Zimmerman's head) before moving on and the "moving shadow" doesn't move and is only visible at one time throughout the entirety of the video despite the fact that the back of Zimmerman's head can be seen at least three times. I'd also like you to provide a source for who in the police department is still claiming that Zimmerman was injured. Aside from the report made by the first officer to arrive there are no medical or official records that show Zimmerman had a broken nose or even a minor head wound. There's nothing absurd about my argument, what's absurd is that you rely on invisible injuries as an excuse to let a man off without even a trial after he admits to shooting someone. What's absurd is that you ignore everything that makes Zimmerman's story suspicious and insist that he shouldn't at the very least be put on trial to prove that his actions were necessary to save his life. You do realize that you don't have to think that he's guilty to believe that he should be put on trial, right?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 00:40:57 Reply

At 3/30/12 08:34 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Getting your head hit multiple times purposefully against the ground, however, is a clear sign the person doing it intends to cause you harm. This isn't like he was just getting punched while still resisting. This is him getting his head bashed against the ground while he's screaming out for help.

Damn near every move in a fight is intended to cause harm. The term isn't harm either. It's serious bodily injury. Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions that could very much color the circumstances in either direction.

does that automatically override the whole part about the person doing the damage having intent to seriously harm you?

Dammit use the right term it makes a difference! It's not 'harm'. 'Harm' is any injury whatsoever. Serious bodily injury is akin to losing the function of a vital organ. Skull bashing that barely causes a visible injury is not even close. Many cicrumstances could make it so, but it itself does not automatically raise the bar to that level. With so many important holes in the event story, even when framed most favorably toward Zimmerman, we just don't have enough to raise it to that level.

Rape is only a physical altercation, and a lot of rapists don't kill their victims. Therefore, no deadly force isn't allowed because it won't cause serious physically injury.

Strawman. Rape is not a physical altercation, rape is a sexual assault. Very very different circumstances.


Getting hit in the head is a very good way to end up with brain damage, a fucked up spinal cord,a coma, or a cracked skull. This isn't like getting punched, this is your head being repeatedly slammed while you are incapacitated. The differences in amount of damage is huge.

The thing with this is he wasn't hit hard enough to cause much visible injury to bare skin right above bone. The amount of force necessary to start causing such serious injury would tear the shit out of his bald head.


That's because he was able to neutralize it. You have no idea how self-defense works do you? It's all about the other party showing intent. If somebody yells "I am going to kill you" and then attacks me, I'd be 100% justified in assuming he intends to cause harm. Let alone past the point of my head being hit against the ground.

Yet Zimmerman has not disclosed any such indicators, except that Martin fought with him. Again we're missing entire chapters of this story.

Except for the part where there doesn't.

But there does.

Oh, no, I fully acknowledge he put that young man under. Just like he deserved. "mere head smashings." Tell me, when was the last time you had that happen to you multiple times? It is a lot different then a normal fight.

Yeah it's different than a normal fight. But again, it does not automatically lift to the level of per se, no trial needed, self defense.

Yes it is. Proportional responses end up with the weaker party fucked, not the one acting in self-defense

I guess you will have to talk to the hundreds of years of law that have worked fairly well on this point.

There was the witness who saw the beginning, with Trayvon smashing Zimmerman. Then we have that same witness with Zimmerman over Trayvon. I love this word: "If." When discussing the legality of things, then whoopsie, that argument means jack shit.

Source this witness. I'd like to see exactly what they saw.

"He was bashing my head against the ground while I cried for help. I was incapacitated. That shows that Martin had clear intent to seriously harm or kill me."

No it doesn't. It is evidence of that, but it does not make the showing itself, such as a knife or a gun would.

Because there is no need to?

I know, because the Police and the DA aren't doing their jobs.

Oh geeze, the prime parts of your nervous system being in immediate danger by somebody bashing your head against the ground does not equate to a serious risk of getting hurt?

Bashed so hard that he practically had a cut and a mild bruise! He was practially killed!!!

Missing parts to the story:
How exactly did the altercation start?
Where was the gun the whole time?
Where did Martin get shot?
If Zimmerman was so overpowered and being so dangerously smashed into the ground, how exactly did he get and shoot his gun?

Zimmerman might have truly acted in self defense. However, the facts, as released, are not so glaring as to immediately end the story before it begins.

This self defense statute was meant to keep the lady who is mugged at knifepoint from being prosecuted for shooting the mugger, and the family shooting an intruder to their home, and for the one person who is getting ganged up on by several people. Zimmerman's case, with the facts at present is borderline. The fact that we are debating shows that there are big questions and the issue is definitely up for grabs. The law was never meant to apply to situations in question.

Zimmerman needs to go to trial. He doesn't need to be held in custody during the trial, but the victim, and the rest of the community deserve to have the facts brought up in front of a jury.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 00:52:03 Reply

At 3/30/12 10:51 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't see how you can dispute that the attack, as he has described it and as the police report and video indicated,

Really? Strange how you get a very clean shot of Zimmerman's head at 0:58 and the wound your link shows was magically gone. He must have got that misterious gash (that looks curiously like a bald contour shadow) in the few second it took him to walk around the front of the police car.


Don't you think that repeatedly bashing someone's head against the ground can cause serious injury or death?

It can but it also isn't automatic, or in some cases (such as those that aren't hard enough to leave much of a mark) even likely at all. But having the possibility of causing injury doesn't make every use of a certain tactic a reasonable ground to shoot someone. When the circumstances indicate the blows to the head were not very hard, the likelihood of serious injury is minimal, and it is not then reasonable to kill.

And if so, do you not recognize that Florida law identifies a credible fear of serious injury or death as a legitmate reason for using deadly force?

It recognizes a reasonable fear, yes. I just don't see the evidence, as it stands now, to be so convincing of the reasonableness of this fear for it to skip the trial.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 00:51:13 Reply

At 3/31/12 12:11 AM, djack wrote:
All Zimmerman had to do was wipe some blood on the back of his head...blah blah crazy nonsense...

What the fuck, man? He has a shaved head and there's a giant freaking V-shaped scar on the back of it. You only see it at one point because it's dark colored and the light only shines directly on it for a moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMF9gfQm9g&feature=related
Ignore the moronic commentary, skip to 1:40; the cop looks right at it for a good 3-4 seconds. Keep watching and you'll see it show up.

I'd also like you to provide a source for who in the police department is still claiming that Zimmerman was injured.

...Do you honestly think that an entire police force would just stand by in the midst of a media firestorm and leak nothing while Zimmerman's lawyer repeatedly said he suffered a broken nose and cut head? Sources inside the department have already given confidental information to the Orlando Sentinel, including an exclusive interview with an eyewitness.

Aside from the report made by the first officer to arrive there are no medical or official records that show Zimmerman had a broken nose or even a minor head wound.

I doubt there's any official record besides the police report; there wasn't ever any need to make one because he wasn't arrested.
You won't see any medical records because they are private; hospitals don't give them away just because the media wants to see them. They'll probably be made available, if they exist, to whatever investigations are going on now.

You do realize that you don't have to think that he's guilty to believe that he should be put on trial, right?

God, I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand how the legal system works, but I am. Here it goes.
The vast majority of people who go to criminal trials are already pretty much guilty in reality. Not only did police and prosecutors decide on an arrest, but the facts of the case alone convinced a grand jury that the suspect probably committed the crime. The actual trial is an opportunity for the suspect to give some sort of defense that explains away all the factors that led to his arrest and indictment. Not surprisingly, most criminal cases don't go to trial because the defendants and their lawyers know they don't have much of a chance.

Basically, a trial comes last, and its absurd to suggest Zimmerman should go to court when the police and district attorney didn't even have enough reason to make a simple arrest, much less an indictment.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 03:29:13 Reply

At 3/31/12 12:11 AM, djack wrote:
All Zimmerman had to do was wipe some blood on the back of his head (it wouldn't even have to be intentional) and the officer at the scene would have thought he was bleeding but that doesn't make that police officer a medical expert.

Except that the paramedics who show up typically clean up and treat people before putting them in police cars to let them bleed all over the seats.

I'm not even on Zimmerman's side, and I believe you people are doing an increasingly piss poor job going after the guy.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 08:46:02 Reply

So it turns out Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling...

RT.com

NBC appears to have edited an excerpt of a phone call made by Trayvon MartinâEUTMs killer to portray him as a racist. The edited George Zimmerman says he thinks Martin is âEU~up to no goodâEUTM just because he was black âEU" but thatâEUTMs not what he really said.
On Tuesday, NBCâEUTMs Today Show hosted by Ron Allen ran a segment of a phone conversation Zimmerman had with police shortly before killing Martin, as reported by FoxâEUTMs Hannity Show. NBCâEUTMs version of the phone call allegedly had Zimmerman say the following about Martin: âEUoeThis guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good. He looks black.âEU
But in reality the two sentences were separated by a question the 911 dispatcher asked. The original phone call transcript ran like this:
Zimmerman: "WeâEUTMve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and thereâEUTMs a real suspicious guy. ItâEUTMs Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good, or heâEUTMs on drugs or something. ItâEUTMs raining and heâEUTMs just walking around, looking about."
911 Dispatcher: âEUoeOkay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?âEU
Zimmerman: âEUoeHe looks black.âEU
If one compares the NBC version with the original transcript, it appears the channel jettisoned ZimmermanâEUTMs real explanation on why he thought Martin looked suspicious, and also got rid of the dispatcherâEUTMs question.

Way to go, NBC.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 08:48:42 Reply

At 3/31/12 08:46 AM, Memorize wrote: So it turns out Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling...

I forgot about the annoying Forum changes.

"NBC appears to have edited an excerpt of a phone call made by Trayvon MartinâEUTMs killer to portray him as a racist. The edited George Zimmerman says he thinks Martin is âEU~up to no goodâEUTM just because he was black âEU" but thatâEUTMs not what he really said.

On Tuesday, NBCâEUTMs Today Show hosted by Ron Allen ran a segment of a phone conversation Zimmerman had with police shortly before killing Martin, as reported by FoxâEUTMs Hannity Show. NBCâEUTMs version of the phone call allegedly had Zimmerman say the following about Martin: âEUoeThis guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good. He looks black.âEU

But in reality the two sentences were separated by a question the 911 dispatcher asked. The original phone call transcript ran like this:

Zimmerman: "WeâEUTMve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and thereâEUTMs a real suspicious guy. ItâEUTMs Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like heâEUTMs up to no good, or heâEUTMs on drugs or something. ItâEUTMs raining and heâEUTMs just walking around, looking about."

911 Dispatcher: âEUoeOkay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?âEU
Zimmerman: âEUoeHe looks black.âEU

If one compares the NBC version with the original transcript, it appears the channel jettisoned ZimmermanâEUTMs real explanation on why he thought Martin looked suspicious, and also got rid of the dispatcherâEUTMs question."

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 11:08:46 Reply

At 3/31/12 12:40 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Damn near every move in a fight is intended to cause harm. The term isn't harm either. It's serious bodily injury. Furthermore, there are many unanswered questions that could very much color the circumstances in either direction.

Yes, punches aren't usually intended to cause serious bodily injury. Banging someones head onto the ground does though.

Dammit use the right term it makes a difference! It's not 'harm'. 'Harm' is any injury whatsoever. Serious bodily injury is akin to losing the function of a vital organ. Skull bashing that barely causes a visible injury is not even close. Many cicrumstances could make it so, but it itself does not automatically raise the bar to that level. With so many important holes in the event story, even when framed most favorably toward Zimmerman, we just don't have enough to raise it to that level.

Did you forget the part where I said "serious"? You can argue semantics all day long, but you know exactly what I meant. Serious bodily injury is more then losing function of an organ. You see, here's the thing. Nowhere in self-defense do you have to wait for the other person to actually cause the serious damage if they have shown their clear intent to do so. Which happened.

Strawman. Rape is not a physical altercation, rape is a sexual assault. Very very different circumstances.

But it doesn't cause serious bodily injury, and I thought that that has to be on the table occurring?

The thing with this is he wasn't hit hard enough to cause much visible injury to bare skin right above bone. The amount of force necessary to start causing such serious injury would tear the shit out of his bald head.

No shit, that's because he pacified the threat. As I said, punch something, shit, go ahead and headbutt something. You can cause no visible damage on the first few strikes. Eventually though, you'll start bleeding and feel dizzy, maybe even knocking yourself out. This is repeated trauma, with intent to do more.

Yet Zimmerman has not disclosed any such indicators, except that Martin fought with him. Again we're missing entire chapters of this story.

You're forgetting the part where Trayvon is bashing his head against the ground again.

But there does.

[Citation Needed]

Yeah it's different than a normal fight. But again, it does not automatically lift to the level of per se, no trial needed, self defense.

Quit shifting the goal posts. Nobody said anything about not wanting a trial.

I guess you will have to talk to the hundreds of years of law that have worked fairly well on this point.

Worked fairly well? People have almost always been allowed to use lethal force in self-defense. Worked pretty well.

Source this witness. I'd like to see exactly what they saw.

Go to the Wiki page. It's one of the basic facts of the shooting.

No it doesn't. It is evidence of that, but it does not make the showing itself, such as a knife or a gun would.

You really are dense aren't you? "He was choking me, but he hadn't caused damage yet, so I better wait until somebody helps or he stops." Both can cause serious injury or death, but both also cause little to no injury up until that point.

I know, because the Police and the DA aren't doing their jobs.

The police had witnesses corroborating Zimmermans story. Under Florida law, they had to let him go. Unless they find sufficient reason to believe the witness was lying, or that other witnesses who SEEN it happen and not BELIEVE it went a certain way come forward, there isn't really a case.

Bashed so hard that he practically had a cut and a mild bruise! He was practially killed!!!

You're forgetting the part where there was clear intent for it to happen multiple times.

Missing parts to the story:
How exactly did the altercation start?

Don't know. But we have witnesses confirming the part where Trayvon took it beyond a fight.

Where was the gun the whole time?

Probably on him not being brandished

Where did Martin get shot?

Chest. Basic fact

If Zimmerman was so overpowered and being so dangerously smashed into the ground, how exactly did he get and shoot his gun?

If somebody has you in a full mount, you could still easily access a firearm depending on where you have it and how high up on you they are. And that's assuming it was a fullmount with Trayvon 100% of the way on top of him and not partially or from the side.

Zimmerman might have truly acted in self defense. However, the facts, as released, are not so glaring as to immediately end the story before it begins.

As I said, let me start hitting your head against the ground. Tell me at what point you feel you have the right to respond with extreme force.

This self defense statute was meant to keep the lady who is mugged at knifepoint from being prosecuted for shooting the mugger, and the family shooting an intruder to their home, and for the one person who is getting ganged up on by several people. Zimmerman's case, with the facts at present is borderline. The fact that we are debating shows that there are big questions and the issue is definitely up for grabs. The law was never meant to apply to situations in question.

The self-defense was meant to let anybody being attacked be able to use the right to defend themselves. If a 6'2 250 ib linebacker is attacked by a small guy who gets the jump on him, he can easily end up dead. You can debate any issue with self-defense. That doesn't mean it means it's up in the air, it means that people are dense.

Zimmerman needs to go to trial. He doesn't need to be held in custody during the trial, but the victim, and the rest of the community deserve to have the facts brought up in front of a jury.

Good thing no one disputes that. I do agree that the victim should have all the facts come forward, and not have the media persecute him and make him might as well be guilty, with the whole 4 year old pictures, conveniently leaving out parts of the story like the part where Trayvon was smashing his head against the ground.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 12:06:25 Reply

At 3/31/12 11:08 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
Zimmerman needs to go to trial. He doesn't need to be held in custody during the trial, but the victim, and the rest of the community deserve to have the facts brought up in front of a jury.
Good thing no one disputes that. I do agree that the victim should have all the facts come forward, and not have the media persecute him and make him might as well be guilty, with the whole 4 year old pictures, conveniently leaving out parts of the story like the part where Trayvon was smashing his head against the ground.

What? I dispute that, and so should you. The burden of proof on the state increases with each step in the legal process; first there's an arrest, then a preliminary hearing, then an indictment, and finally a trial. If there wasn't enough reason to arrest Zimmerman, how is he supposed to be put on trial?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly 2012-03-31 12:28:20 Reply

At 3/31/12 11:08 AM, RacistBassist wrote: Yes, punches aren't usually intended to cause serious bodily injury. Banging someones head onto the ground does though.

Submission is not serious bodily injury. I'm not disagreeing that smashibng of the head is more serious than a regular fight. What I am saying is that it doesn't rise to the level necessary to end the inquiry before it begins. It is strong evidence, but hardly conclusive. I think we're having different standards for what should shut down a homicide case on a claim of self defense at the very beginning. I hold that standard to be extremely high. Like, knife, gun, baseball bat, or ganging up assault. 1 on 1 smashing of the head at the end of an altercation is not that high. There is enough other possibilities, especially with the holes in the story, that the self defense claim cannot just be taken on face value.

Did you forget the part where I said "serious"? You can argue semantics all day long, but you know exactly what I meant. Serious bodily injury is more then losing function of an organ. You see, here's the thing. Nowhere in self-defense do you have to wait for the other person to actually cause the serious damage if they have shown their clear intent to do so. Which happened.

I don't see smashing the heasd of another during a fight as clear intent of that. It is intent to harm, but intent to cause serious harm? It's not definitive enough. Now if Martian had then asked Zimmerman to go to the street and bite the curb, then we have another story.


No shit, that's because he pacified the threat. As I said, punch something, shit, go ahead and headbutt something. You can cause no visible damage on the first few strikes. Eventually though, you'll start bleeding and feel dizzy, maybe even knocking yourself out. This is repeated trauma, with intent to do more.

If head smashing was the threat, it has to be more than light. If it was light head smashibng, the only threat he put down was getting his ass kicked, which does not justify the use of lethal force.

Quit shifting the goal posts. Nobody said anything about not wanting a trial.

Wait, what? I have been arguing reasons why this bypasses the self defense law that immediately stops all prosecution and investigation, not that it would fail as an affirmative defense in front of a fact finder.

Worked fairly well? People have almost always been allowed to use lethal force in self-defense. Worked pretty well.

Exactly, but they're only allowed to use proportional actions. Now proportional doesn't mean equal. Proportional means the least amount possible to diffuse the threat of the situation as presented. There have been numerous cases where a victim has been convicted of murder because they went well overboard in their response. to the initial attack.

Go to the Wiki page. It's one of the basic facts of the shooting.

None of the witness in that page saw the beginning of the altercation.

You really are dense aren't you? "He was choking me, but he hadn't caused damage yet, so I better wait until somebody helps or he stops." Both can cause serious injury or death, but both also cause little to no injury up until that point.

"How many times can I use a fundamentally different set of facts and act like I have outsmarted you?" Strangling is different, very different.

How exactly did the altercation start?
Don't know. But we have witnesses confirming the part where Trayvon took it beyond a fight.

No we don't. We have witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman striking him. None of the witnesses saw the fight so they have no idea what led up to this. Information about how the fight started could send this story either direction. Based on the buildup, Zimmerman following Martin for a while at night after he was asked not to, indicated enough intent on Zimmerman's part to raise questions.

Where was the gun the whole time?
Probably on him not being brandished

Conjecture. However, if Martian was able to see the gun prior to the head smashing, Zimmerman loses his defense. Thjere are some many missing facts that could easily flip this case from Zimmerman self defense to Martin self defense (both sides can't have it).

If Zimmerman was so overpowered and being so dangerously smashed into the ground, how exactly did he get and shoot his gun?
If somebody has you in a full mount, you could still easily access a firearm depending on where you have it and how high up on you they are. And that's assuming it was a fullmount with Trayvon 100% of the way on top of him and not partially or from the side.

Again, conjecture based on no facts. There needs to be a proper investigation to figure out some of these facts, and unless something pops up at that point that unequivocally exhonerates Zimmerman, this should go to trial.

The self-defense was meant to let anybody being attacked be able to use the right to defend themselves. If a 6'2 250 ib linebacker is attacked by a small guy who gets the jump on him, he can easily end up dead.

Yes he can. However, you cannot make that determination based on the last quarter of a story and evidence of extremely minor injuries. When it turns out the Linebacker was following the smaller guy in the middle of the night for several minutes after being told he shouldn't by police dispatch, this evidence is even less definitive.


Good thing no one disputes that. I do agree that the victim should have all the facts come forward, and not have the media persecute him and make him might as well be guilty, with the whole 4 year old pictures, conveniently leaving out parts of the story like the part where Trayvon was smashing his head against the ground.

I am perfectly fine with this.

My issues are that the facts are nowhere near definitive enough to let Zimmerman get off without a trial or even a full investigation.

Zimmerman's story (not his dad's which is completely fabricated) in the light most favorable to him shows that self defense was necessary, but only has mild indications that that force ever needed to be deadly. In my opinion, and this is how I would act as the prosecutor, unless it was damn near definitive that deadly force was necessary to the threat presented, I would proceed forward. Instead, the DA and the police (who actually were smart enough to request a charge) decided that somewhere between 'possibly' and 'somewhat likely' was enough. If that's the kind of zeal DAs put into their jobs in Florida, no wonder parts of Florida are crime ridden shitholes. (perhaps this DA saw how the Anthony DA's overzealousness cost him the case, and instead of doing the right thing, kneejerked to the point a killer is going free without any legal inquiry)

Head smashing, while bad, is not definitive a deadly or seriously injurious enough move to end all discussions as the the use of deadly force against it. It is borderline, and definitely evicdence of that in court. However, the strength at which head smashing is done can change it from a serious attempt to injure to an attempt to subdue. The threat of submission in a physical altercation does NOT kick the level of appropriate self defense up to deadly force. All the evidence we have as of right now, indicates that smashing very much on the lighter side (the injuries to the back of a bald head where slight and not visible in the video, and Zimmerman got up from the shooting appearing to be uninjured, not in a daze or anything like that)

We don't have the lead up either. We have the story of Zimmerman following Martin at night for a few minutes when he was told not to. Our story then skips to minutes later where people see Martin on top of Zimmernman. Those missing minutes are crucial. Based on Zimmerman's act of following Martin, it is highly possible that it was in fact Martin who was acting in self defense, trying to subdue a strange man who had following him through a strange neighborhood in the middle of the night.

Neither of those two points are definitive or unequivocal.