Be a Supporter!

Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly

  • 17,063 Views
  • 838 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 12:39 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 12:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: 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?

I am claiming that there was more than enough reason to arrest Zimmerman. Nothing about his story is conclusive enough to overturn any doubt that he committed the crime of manslaughter (or Murder 2)

And actually, there are only two levels of proof for a regular trial. Probable cause to make an arrest and proceed to trial, and beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. reasonable suspicion often preceeds probable cause and the arrest, but that's not 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 Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 01:33 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Submission is not serious bodily injury...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.

This was neither submission or a single head smash. This was repeated, over and over again, after he had already been taken out by a single punch. How many times should Zimmerman have allowed his head to be slammed before using force?

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.

What difference does the intent make? How was Zimmerman supposed to know what Martin's intent was? Was Martin monologuing or something?

If head smashing was the threat, it has to be more than light. If it was light head smashibng,

Wow. Define "light head smashing." Gentle, slow tapping?
Your entire argument depends on this. You recognize that head smashing can cause serious or fatal injury, you acknowledge that Martin smashed Zimmerman's head, yet you insist that this sort of attack didn't merit Zimmerman's response based on the fact that his injuries are "light."

What me and Racist keep trying to tell you, which I don't think you've addressed directly, is that Zimmerman didn't have to wait and see if Martin decided to keep banging his skull to the point that half his brains started to fall out before shooting him.
You seem to think that if it were a threatening attack, Zimmerman would have had a serious brain injury after being slammed once or that it's impossible for repeated blows to do any real damage.

Zimmerman following Martin for a while at night after he was asked not to

You call me dense, yet you say things like this. "You don't have to do that" is not, I repeat, not the same as "Don't do that."

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 03:48 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 01:33 PM, adrshepard wrote: This was neither submission or a single head smash. This was repeated, over and over again, after he had already been taken out by a single punch. How many times should Zimmerman have allowed his head to be slammed before using force?

He doesn't have to allow it. That doesn't mean he has to shoot. Lethal force self defence (outside of the location exceptions) is meant to be a last result. Again, the evidence is not definitive about that.

What difference does the intent make? How was Zimmerman supposed to know what Martin's intent was? Was Martin monologuing or something?

The comment I responded to talked about "think he intends to kill". There is little evidence to show that Martin was performing the violent act hard enough to give off the impression that he intended to kill with it. In other words, getting subdued by someone who you may or may not have picked a physical fight with does not constitute a reasonable belief that you will be subject to death or serious injury.


Wow. Define "light head smashing." Gentle, slow tapping?

Slow enough tapping to cause little skin break on a bald man's head, and light brusiging. So little and so light that the video shows a nice shiny head with no injuries. This isn't the stomach where it can take a severe pounding and have little to nothing to show of it. This is skin right over bone. When that sort of area gets injured, even fairly mildly, it looks nasty. Also, heads bleed like crazy. What's the point of this? To show that the head smashing, unless Zimmerman makes any claim to the contrary, it sure as hell was not very hard if hard at all.

What me and Racist keep trying to tell you, which I don't think you've addressed directly, is that Zimmerman didn't have to wait and see if Martin decided to keep banging his skull to the point that half his brains started to fall out before shooting him.

He didn't have to wait for that. However, nothing indicated it was coming. His head wasn't getting hit hard enough to cause a raspberry. Under your logic, the most minor of injuries, if done in a certain place is ground to immediately (and irrationally) jump to "I'm going to die" and then to kill the other person. What I am saying is that we don't know enough to set the stage and the act of light head smashing is not enough alone to establish self defense to a level that should preclude trial.

You seem to think that if it were a threatening attack, Zimmerman would have had a serious brain injury after being slammed once or that it's impossible for repeated blows to do any real damage.

Not necessarily. If it were life threatening there would be something more than the facts as presented show. As of right now, they show that self defense was warranted, but they are not adequate to establish the use of lethal force as self defense. They are hardly definitive. It's all 'can' and 'possible'. Those aren't good enough to avoid trial completely.


You call me dense, yet you say things like this. "You don't have to do that" is not, I repeat, not the same as "Don't do that."

The dispatch told him they did not need him to do that and to wait for the police. The guidelines for the neighborhood watch explicitly say not to follow. He had been talked to by his neighborhood watch about not doing that. What about any of those three things changes what I said before?

Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 05:51 PM Reply

I think I have to side with adrshepard on this one, in the sense that the details of the case are sketchy enough that the decision of if/when to take the guy to trial becomes a matter of legal strategy. From what I've read, the events are roughly like this:

1. Zimmerman spots Martin and for whatever reason, believes he is engaging in suspicious behaviour.
2. Zimmerman calls police to report this. Police instruct him not to engage.
3. Zimmerman engages Martin, leading to a physical altercation. The details of this altercation are sketchy at best.
4. Zimmerman fatally shoots Martin.
5. Police arrive, Zimmerman admits killing Martin and claims self-defense. Police handling of the crime scene is questionable.

This is the kind of shit that a DA hates to have on their desk, especially once it gets media attention, because then you have a horde of armchair investigators trying to use youtube footage to do forensic analysis and draw legal conclusions about the nature of the altercation in #3. The prosecutor probably doesn't buy the self-defense excuse, but that's not at issue, what's at issue is trying to get enough evidence to make an appropriate charge stick in court. You can't go back in time and make the police gather better evidence on the spot, so what do you do?

Now you're stuck, because if you arrest Zimmerman, you have to charge him, and if you charge him, you need to bring him to trial in a relatively timely manner, and if you don't already have enough evidence for a probable conviction, then you're gambling on being able to collect that evidence in the interim. The problem with demanding a trial is that there are consequences to not getting a guilty verdict. Besides the public outrage it would cause, there's also the issue of precedent. When you have a case like this where important details are so vague and uncertain, it's hard to tell how it'll shake out in court, and the decision that's made may end up affecting dozens of homicide cases in the future. If Zimmerman is tried and found not guilty, what effect would this have for claims of self-defense? One acquittal now might mean a dozen more acquittals in the future.

You've got to admit that it's a pretty delicate situation to handle. The DA is pretty much fucked no matter what they do, including if they do nothing. It's one thing to want the situation to pan out a certain way, it's another thing to claim that they're doing the wrong thing because it's not going the way you think it should. Cases like this one are real minefields for the prosecution.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 07:55 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 05:51 PM, Elfer wrote: The prosecutor probably doesn't buy the self-defense excuse, but that's not at issue, what's at issue is trying to get enough evidence to make an appropriate charge stick in court.

This is definitely an issue, but that doesn't mean this case shouldn't have been charged in the first place. The vidence wasn't going anywhere. The DA could ahve easily just sent the police back out the next day.

And adr is arguing that this case doesn't even warrant consideration for a trial and never did, not that we shouldn't do it now.

One acquittal now might mean a dozen more acquittals in the future.

Not necessarily. First, trial court decisions are not considered precedent. Second, it is quite easy to distinguish a case that was lost based on a lack of facts or bad facts from one where the facts of the case just didn't constitute a crime. This case would likely be the former. Look at the Anthony trial. It hasn't had any legal ripples.

You've got to admit that it's a pretty delicate situation to handle. The DA is pretty much fucked no matter what they do, including if they do nothing.

Well, when you're fucked either way, I believe that a DA would have a duty to go forward, if for no other reason to put the question to a jury.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 08:27 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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.

Ask any instructor who teaches people how to fight and ask them if banging someones head against the ground is considered a submission. You gravely underestimate the amount of damage caused by repeatedly striking an opponent who is incapacitated, especially when that striking involves hitting the head against the ground

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.

What is the difference? Bashing the back of somebodies head on the ground can easily cause more serious damage then a curb stomp. It's just not as iconic.

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.

If you are getting beat over and over when you're screaming for help, then yes, it does justify it. The other party showed no intent to stop. And how do you know it was light smashing? The head is thick as fuck, you can take a whole bunch of potentially fatal damage with no indication besides pain.

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.

Your argument is basically "Getting your head smashed to the ground isn't that bad. Therefore, no self-defense is required"

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.

That's the thing. Zimmerman had no other options besides take the brunt of it all with no help in sight or any signs of stopping, or use lethal force.

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

That wasn't what you wanted though.

"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 so? Both involve potentially fatal damage that leaves no outside indication besides pain, and the longer you do it for, the greater the chances rise at a non-constant level.

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.

"No we don't, we have witnesses saying exactly what you described but you're wrong somehow." Where was he asked not to? Seriously, source me this. He was told it wasn't needed. Huge difference.

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 Martin sees the gun prior to head smashing, why the fuck would he stop or approach Zimmerman? Those missing facts? go ahead and cite them. Until then, it's all conjecture on your behalf.

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.

Uh, no, not conjecture. Conjecture is assuming he can't reach. What isn't conjecture is being able to show that even if Trayvon was on top, he could still access a weapon. If it was in a pocket or tucked into pants, then it'd be extremely easy to access. If it's in a holster, he would need his thigh pressing as hard as it can to not get it.

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.

You can make the determination, however, going off of prior events of somebody following somebody while on the phone with police, who has witnesses corroborate his story. Smaller guy? Trayvon was taller and wearing a hoodie. You will not be able to tell if he was smaller.

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

Nobody claimed neither should happen

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)

When your only options are "scream for help" or "Shoot the guy with a legal firearm bashing your head against the ground" you are allowed to use deadly force. Ask any lawyer about that in a state with self-defense laws.

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)

Except the part where it is. That can cause serious or fatal injury to a person very easily, while the first few don't hurt.

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.

Possible=! Enough to arrest somebody. Zimm was on the phone with police, trying to get them there, with a witness backing up his story with no witnesses being able to see anything that doesn't back it up.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 11:13 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 08:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Ask any instructor who teaches people how to fight and ask them if banging someones head against the ground is considered a submission. You gravely underestimate the amount of damage caused by repeatedly striking an opponent who is incapacitated, especially when that striking involves hitting the head against the ground

I've been in enough fights to know this much. a punch can sting, a punch can leave a bruise, and a punch to the right spot can kill. slamming a person's head against the ground, be it pavement, metal, or even grass can be lethal, even if the ground isn't hard enough to crack the skull, the jerking motion can still damage or even break the neck. the neck is attached to the spine by a thin cord of nerves. Also, the jarring of the brain from it can cause the brain to crash into the skull causing bruising, swelling, and bleeding on the brain, which of course can be lethal.

Also, it doesn't take that much force to break someone's nose, and the experience will cause watering of the eyes, which effectively limits your vision and gives your opponent a clear advantage in a fight.

it's quite possible that Trayvon took a swing and broke his nose, causing his eyes to water, then takes him to the ground and begin slamming his head into the ground. Just because Zimmerman is bigger doesn't mean he's a master fighter. more than likely Zimmerman had no idea how to fight and got his ass kicked because he overestimated his own abilities and underestimated Trayvon's, who of course is most likely a lot more agile.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 11:25 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 10:25 PM, Austerity wrote: It's good to know that if a young man with a nasty attitude comes at me and starts attacking me that I can defend myself, but if he happens to be black then I can't unless I'm black.

Or you come and him and he responds with a nasty attitude?


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 Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 11:45 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 08:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ask any instructor who teaches people how to fight and ask them if banging someones head against the ground is considered a submission.

I've seen no evidence that Martin knew how to fight or any of this. I could see how someone would think that hitting another person's head on the ground could subdue them. It doesn't mean it's the best or most optimal move, or that it doesn't have possible nasty effects.

What is the difference? Bashing the back of somebodies head on the ground can easily cause more serious damage then a curb stomp. It's just not as iconic.

No, there's a major difference. Zimmerman is proof that you can 'repeatedly' slam someone's head into the ground without causing any injuries of note. A curb stomp will always cause serious injury.

If you are getting beat over and over when you're screaming for help, then yes, it does justify it. The other party showed no intent to stop. And how do you know it was light smashing? The head is thick as fuck, you can take a whole bunch of potentially fatal damage with no indication besides pain.

Yes, the head can. Yet, let's remember that Zimmerman is bald. Skin on bone (skin with little to no tissue between it an bone) bruises and scrapes like nobody's business. If the head smashign was more than light or superficial, he'd have mo0re than some cuts and bruises that are so light a relatively clear security camera cannot spot any of them. Also, Zimmerman has never once claimed that he felt woozy or dizzy like there were internal effects.


Your argument is basically "Getting your head smashed to the ground isn't that bad. Therefore, no self-defense is required"

That is a piss porr reading of my posts and you know it. I am saying that while head smashing is grounds for self defense, and could be ground for the use of lethal force in self defense, head smashing without something more does not automatically jump to the point of lethal self defense. In other words, his self defense claim is good enough to come out at trial, and it has a good possibility of winning at trial, but it is not so unequivocal, so definitive, so conclusive as to stop the issue before it goes to trial.

That's the thing. Zimmerman had no other options besides take the brunt of it all with no help in sight or any signs of stopping, or use lethal force.

Sure, Zimmerman may claim that, but the physical evidence (i.e. his lack of any real injury from the head smashing), the fact that he followed Martin after being politely nudged to stop (and against the rules of theneighborhood watch), and the fact that Zimmerman does nto appear to be a small guy, all really just put a strong layer of skepticism toward his story, or at least the level of danger he believed he was in.

That wasn't what you wanted though.

That is what I wanted. If Zimmerman started the fight, then his self defense claim disappears.

How so? Both involve potentially fatal damage that leaves no outside indication besides pain, and the longer you do it for, the greater the chances rise at a non-constant level.

Blunt force to a skin on bone area does leave outside marks. Strangling is intended to deprive the other of the oxygen needed to live. Hitting another person, even if it is the head, does not have a singular and extremely life threatening intent.

"No we don't, we have witnesses saying exactly what you described but you're wrong somehow." Where was he asked not to? Seriously, source me this. He was told it wasn't needed. Huge difference.

He was told by dispatch that it was not needed, yes. But really, is Zimmerman so stupid as to not realize that the statement meant back off? Also, it was against the rules of the neighborhood watch. Explicity against the rules. If I remember right, he was chastized for doing the same thing before.

If Martin sees the gun prior to head smashing, why the fuck would he stop or approach Zimmerman? Those missing facts?

Unlike light and superficial head smashing, seeing a gun on a person who is acting agressively toward you (such as following you in the middle of the night) does create a presumption that a reasonable person would feel their life is threatened. Some people, when threatened with a gun, will try to subdue the person with the gun. Nothing in Zimmerman's story (which is no doubt self serving) expressly rules this out. None of the witness or other evidence does either.

go ahead and cite them. Until then, it's all conjecture on your behalf.

So, according to you, the lack of any facts means they automatically must favor Zimmerman, as he (who has no reason to be biased about this whatsoever) is the only person to listen to?


Nobody claimed neither should happen

Adr has expressly stated this should never go to trial. Also, by arguing that head smashing is 100% of the time per se reason to kill, are arguing for an interpretation that causes this case to not go to trial based on the Florida Law. So while you may not expressly have stated this, you are still arguing it.


When your only options are "scream for help" or "Shoot the guy with a legal firearm bashing your head against the ground" you are allowed to use deadly force. Ask any lawyer about that in a state with self-defense laws.

Any lawyer who tells you that you absolutely can do lethal self defense in any scenario, especially one that is not as clear cut, is not worth the paper their BAR Certificate is printed on. Self defense is extremely fact based, and even times where lethal weapons are brandished could end up not being grounds for lethal self defense.


Except the part where it is. That can cause serious or fatal injury to a person very easily, while the first few don't hurt.

Yeah, when it is hard. However the evidence at hand here strongly disputes the claim that the head smashing was anything but superficial. Superficial hand to hand contact is not automatic grounds for self defense. It needs to be proven by a clear and convincing standrad to the jury. If a jury looked at the fact of this case after they were presented in a trial and determined that Zimmerman was in the right in using lethal force for self defense, I'd be fine with their determination. However, I am not comfortable with determining that conclusion before a trial has even started. There is enough question, about the injury factor of head smashing, what happened to start the altercation, and other things to create enough doubt to bring it to trial.

Possible=! Enough to arrest somebody. Zimm was on the phone with police, trying to get them there, with a witne

When a guy claims that be in fear of his life from another who had no weapons, no cohorts, and had not yet injured, made signs that he was escalating, or made statements about his intent, the police should be skeptical enough to investigate further. There is more than enough evidence to convict on manslaughter+ without the self defense claim. That coupled with the shakiness of the story is more than enough probable cause to take this to trial. It should have gone to trial.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Mar. 31st, 2012 @ 11:50 PM Reply

At 3/31/12 11:13 PM, Korriken wrote: it's quite possible that Trayvon took a swing and broke his nose, causing his eyes to water, then takes him to the ground and begin slamming his head into the ground. Just because Zimmerman is bigger doesn't mean he's a master fighter. more than likely Zimmerman had no idea how to fight and got his ass kicked because he overestimated his own abilities and underestimated Trayvon's, who of course is most likely a lot more agile.

yeah, and if this were the case, a jury would aqcuit Zimmernman. Instead we have a possible scenario with many holes being determined to be definitive enough to skip trial altogether. A young man was killed and the proof of lethal force self defense is hardly airtight. This should go to trial so a jury can weigh the facts and make the decision properly.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 12:05 AM Reply

Honestly, can't we just agree that the justice system should sort this out instead of dismissing it based on the sketchy evidence we've been given? If Zimmerman's self defense claim is so bulletproof, what harm is there in actually investigating the case and proving his claims to a jury?

I can understand why someone might be prone to believe Zim's story, but we need more than assumptions and circumstantial evidence to throw the case in the garbage. If we had a video of Martin with his hands around Zimmerman's neck, slamming him back and forth like a rag doll, maybe then we can say beyond reasonable doubt that Invader Zim was in mortal danger. But you don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. The only person who knows is Zimmerman and he obviously has a bias. Shouldn't we investigate this farther?


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 02:57 AM Reply

At 3/31/12 11:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I've seen no evidence that Martin knew how to fight or any of this. I could see how someone would think that hitting another person's head on the ground could subdue them. It doesn't mean it's the best or most optimal move, or that it doesn't have possible nasty effects.

Not knowing how to fight is no excuse to use something like that.

No, there's a major difference. Zimmerman is proof that you can 'repeatedly' slam someone's head into the ground without causing any injuries of note. A curb stomp will always cause serious injury.

Yeah, I guess there's that. But still, that does not change that it is something that easily can cause grievous harm, and Zimmerman had no other option. It's already shown that Trayvon was in a superior position on top of him. He was screaming out for help, and there's no way he could have run. When literally your only options are to hope for help, for the attacked to stop and let you escape, or to use deadly force, you are justified in using lethal force.

Yes, the head can. Yet, let's remember that Zimmerman is bald. Skin on bone (skin with little to no tissue between it an bone) bruises and scrapes like nobody's business. If the head smashign was more than light or superficial, he'd have mo0re than some cuts and bruises that are so light a relatively clear security camera cannot spot any of them. Also, Zimmerman has never once claimed that he felt woozy or dizzy like there were internal effects.

I have very short hair all of the time. I've gotten hit with a bat. Holy tits on a stick absolutely no bruising, swelling, or bleeding. Just extreme amounts of dizziness and pain. Does that mean that getting hit by a bat is no longer a big deal? Absolutely not. During a fight, people sort of "black out" (I hate using that term but meh). He wouldn't need to say he was confused or dizzy, considering he just got his head smash.

That is a piss porr reading of my posts and you know it. I am saying that while head smashing is grounds for self defense, and could be ground for the use of lethal force in self defense, head smashing without something more does not automatically jump to the point of lethal self defense. In other words, his self defense claim is good enough to come out at trial, and it has a good possibility of winning at trial, but it is not so unequivocal, so definitive, so conclusive as to stop the issue before it goes to trial.

Yes, it is 100% definitive. Ask any lawyer, jury, police, or judge in a state that has laws that allow you to use force, especially ones with no duty to retreat. If you're on the ground, getting your head smashed into it, with no way to escape and you're screaming for help but no one is coming, you are allowed to neutralize that threat with extreme force.

Sure, Zimmerman may claim that, but the physical evidence (i.e. his lack of any real injury from the head smashing), the fact that he followed Martin after being politely nudged to stop (and against the rules of theneighborhood watch), and the fact that Zimmerman does nto appear to be a small guy, all really just put a strong layer of skepticism toward his story, or at least the level of danger he believed he was in.

I don't give a fuck about the peoples size or if they were able to stop it before it happened, thus preventing the serious injury. The other party showed intent, with no signs of stopping. That alone, even without injury, is enough to use lethal force.

That is what I wanted. If Zimmerman started the fight, then his self defense claim disappears.

"if"

Blunt force to a skin on bone area does leave outside marks. Strangling is intended to deprive the other of the oxygen needed to live. Hitting another person, even if it is the head, does not have a singular and extremely life threatening intent.

It can, not does. Just like if I punch myself in the eye I will sometimes cut it or leave a bruise, but not always. Slamming the back of somebodies is intended to cause serious harm to the other person, since it requires more effort then punching with no extra benefit besides a much higher risk of serious injury, not just pain.

He was told by dispatch that it was not needed, yes. But really, is Zimmerman so stupid as to not realize that the statement meant back off? Also, it was against the rules of the neighborhood watch. Explicity against the rules. If I remember right, he was chastized for doing the same thing before.

Which as anyone with even a basic understanding of English will tell you is nowhere near an order. Dispatch can be funny. They'll tell you you aren't needed to go outside and help if 3 guys just pulled a knife on one guy. Know why? Because if they say either way, they can get in serious shit in the event they are wrong.

Unlike light and superficial head smashing, seeing a gun on a person who is acting agressively toward you (such as following you in the middle of the night) does create a presumption that a reasonable person would feel their life is threatened. Some people, when threatened with a gun, will try to subdue the person with the gun. Nothing in Zimmerman's story (which is no doubt self serving) expressly rules this out. None of the witness or other evidence does either.

"They didn't say it didn't happen!"

Really? Is that what you're basing this off of? Nobody said that Zimmerman didn't cut him off with his car, get out, hit him with a bat, hide the bat, switch sweaters with Trayvon, climb on top, and then switch sweaters again and shoot him. Therefore, that's what happened and needs to be addressed.

So, according to you, the lack of any facts means they automatically must favor Zimmerman, as he (who has no reason to be biased about this whatsoever) is the only person to listen to?

No, the lack of those facts means that we cannot default to Zimmerman being guilty because of it.

Adr has expressly stated this should never go to trial. Also, by arguing that head smashing is 100% of the time per se reason to kill, are arguing for an interpretation that causes this case to not go to trial based on the Florida Law. So while you may not expressly have stated this, you are still arguing it.

I forgot I was Adr.

Any lawyer who tells you that you absolutely can do lethal self defense in any scenario, especially one that is not as clear cut, is not worth the paper their BAR Certificate is printed on. Self defense is extremely fact based, and even times where lethal weapons are brandished could end up not being grounds for lethal self defense.

Who said any scenario? This is a specific scenario that involves no help being around, with your only option being to shoot, or pose a very serious risk of getting killed or paralyzed.

Yeah, when it is hard. However the evidence at hand here strongly disputes the claim that the head smashing was anything but superficial. Superficial hand to hand contact is not automatic grounds for self defense. It needs to be proven by a clear and convincing standrad to the jury. I

Here's the thing though. You're looking at this at purely the damage that was done, and not future damage potentially being done. What's next, are you going to argue Castle Laws are bad since the person in your home hasn't actually hurt you yet?

When a guy claims that be in fear of his life from another who had no weapons, no cohorts, and had not yet injured, made signs that he was escalating, or made statements about his intent, the police should be skeptical enough to investigate further. There is more than enough evidence to convict on manslaughter+ without the self defense claim. That coupled with the shakiness of the story is more than enough probable cause to take this to trial. It should have gone to tr

You don't need the other person to have a weapon for them to kill you, paralyze you, put you in a coma. They could acheive that by merely grabbing your head and hitting it against the ground.


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 Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:19 AM Reply

At 4/1/12 02:57 AM, RacistBassist wrote: I don't give a fuck about the peoples size or if they were able to stop it before it happened, thus preventing the serious injury. The other party showed intent, with no signs of stopping. That alone, even without injury, is enough to use lethal force.

That is what I wanted. If Zimmerman started the fight, then his self defense claim disappears.
"if"

So we sould just take hinm for his word then and completely skip trial?


Really? Is that what you're basing this off of? Nobody said that Zimmerman didn't cut him off with his car, get out, hit him with a bat, hide the bat, switch sweaters with Trayvon, climb on top, and then switch sweaters again and shoot him. Therefore, that's what happened and needs to be addressed.

No, but based on Zimmerman's aggressive following of Martin, I don't believe that Zimemrman is as helpless the victim as he would like us to believe. The lead up is important, and creates significant doubt to his story.

No, the lack of those facts means that we cannot default to Zimmerman being guilty because of it.

That is not what's being argued here.


I forgot I was Adr.

OK, then, what the hell are you actually arguing then? You say this should go to trial, then argue that his self defense claim is so strong that it would, under Florida Law, mean that trial is ruled out. So, what exactly are you arguing here? Should there be a trial, or is his self defense claim airtight?

I'm not arguing guilt, or the validity of an in trial affirmative defense of lethal self defense. I am arguing that his self defense claim isn't strong ehough to trigger the Florida Law that removes trial from the table.

Who said any scenario? This is a specific scenario that involves no help being around, with your only option being to shoot, or pose a very serious risk of getting killed or paralyzed.

Oh, if (see you're iffing a lot too) those were the only facts...

Here's the thing though. You're looking at this at purely the damage that was done, and not future damage potentially being done.

The reasonable belief must either be based on current serious injury (which there was hardly visible injury) or future injury. Nothing about his circumstances indicated that he was in imminent danger of serious injury or worse. Being beaten up ina fight you helped pick does not rise to those grounds.

You don't need the other person to have a weapon for them to kill you, paralyze you, put you in a coma. They could acheive that by merely grabbing your head and hitting it against the ground.

That's right you don't need one. But having one makes self defense rise to lethal force much easier, and more definitively.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:28 AM Reply

At 4/1/12 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So we sould just take hinm for his word then and completely skip trial?

Why do people keep saying skipping trial? How many times do I have to say that I still think there should be an investigation and a trial?

No, but based on Zimmerman's aggressive following of Martin, I don't believe that Zimemrman is as helpless the victim as he would like us to believe. The lead up is important, and creates significant doubt to his story.

Prove it was aggressive following. The part where he's on the phone with police really indicates that he wasn't trying to be an aggressor, unless he was planning on potentially attacking the person with police right around the corner. Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal. Trayvon acted illegally if he attacked, which is how the story is currently playing out.

OK, then, what the hell are you actually arguing then? You say this should go to trial, then argue that his self defense claim is so strong that it would, under Florida Law, mean that trial is ruled out. So, what exactly are you arguing here? Should there be a trial, or is his self defense claim airtight?

No. Just no. Where did I say he shouldn't go to trial? I'm saying that charging him for murder is retarded. His self-defense claim is air-tight, unless a surprise eye witness comes forward after this media crusade, which I am surprised hasn't happened.

I'm not arguing guilt, or the validity of an in trial affirmative defense of lethal self defense. I am arguing that his self defense claim isn't strong ehough to trigger the Florida Law that removes trial from the table.

So the witnesses mean nothing?

Oh, if (see you're iffing a lot too) those were the only facts...

I'm sorry, but there is no "if" from what I said in relation to the story. Nobody was helping him. He could not see any help coming. He is screaming for help. It's already shown that Trayvon straight up beats him in the fighting part, with his head getting smashed. There was no other recourse but wait for serious injury or hope that the person who is attacking you decides "Fuck it, I gotta watch some basketball"

The reasonable belief must either be based on current serious injury (which there was hardly visible injury) or future injury. Nothing about his circumstances indicated that he was in imminent danger of serious injury or worse. Being beaten up ina fight you helped pick does not rise to those grounds.

"Or future injury"

You know, kinda like the part where the back of the head is being slammed against the ground. Zimmerman was incapacitated and screaming for help, and Trayvon wouldn't let up. That is clear indication that Trayvon intended to harm. This isn't being beaten up in a fight. When fights go to the ground, and somebody ends up unable or unwilling to fight back, it poses the risk of serious injury.

That's right you don't need one. But having one makes self defense rise to lethal force much easier, and more definitively.

Oh no, the person used lethal force when the other person was bashing his head into the ground with no help in sight.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 02:48 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 05:34 AM, Austerity wrote:
At 3/31/12 11:25 PM, MrFlopz wrote:
At 3/31/12 10:25 PM, Austerity wrote: It's good to know that if a young man with a nasty attitude comes at me and starts attacking me that I can defend myself, but if he happens to be black then I can't unless I'm black.
Or you come and him and he responds with a nasty attitude?
proof?

The fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by stalking Martin... Zim wasn't minding his own business when he got attacked by some random person. Martin attacked because he felt threatened by a stranger following him. The details of the encounter itself are unknown but it is a fact that Zimmerman was following Martin before the incident.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 03:32 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 11:28 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 4/1/12 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So we sould just take hinm for his word then and completely skip trial?
Why do people keep saying skipping trial? How many times do I have to say that I still think there should be an investigation and a trial?

We keep saying that because adr is arguing against there being a trial and he's using the exact same arguments you are.

No, but based on Zimmerman's aggressive following of Martin, I don't believe that Zimemrman is as helpless the victim as he would like us to believe. The lead up is important, and creates significant doubt to his story.
Prove it was aggressive following. The part where he's on the phone with police really indicates that he wasn't trying to be an aggressor, unless he was planning on potentially attacking the person with police right around the corner. Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal. Trayvon acted illegally if he attacked, which is how the story is currently playing out.

Martin started running when he realized Zimmerman was following him in his truck, Zimmerman responded by getting out of his truck and chasing Martin down on foot. Martin was already scared of Zimmerman, the fact that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and continued chasing Martin gives Martin reason to be afraid. Zimmerman may not have been doing anything illegal by following Martin but he was doing something stupid that put him in danger and makes his claim of self-defense questionable. You're also basing your arguments on the assumption that Martin attacked first but from the moment Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following Martin to the moment Zimmerman shot Martin we know very little. We know Martin at some point knocked Zimmerman to the ground and wound up on top of him but how that conflict started is a complete mystery.

OK, then, what the hell are you actually arguing then? You say this should go to trial, then argue that his self defense claim is so strong that it would, under Florida Law, mean that trial is ruled out. So, what exactly are you arguing here? Should there be a trial, or is his self defense claim airtight?
No. Just no. Where did I say he shouldn't go to trial? I'm saying that charging him for murder is retarded. His self-defense claim is air-tight, unless a surprise eye witness comes forward after this media crusade, which I am surprised hasn't happened.

Either he's tried for murder/manslaughter or he's not tried at all. There is no other charge that would fit his actions. His self-defense claim is far from air-tight and that's the whole reason there should be a trial.

I'm not arguing guilt, or the validity of an in trial affirmative defense of lethal self defense. I am arguing that his self defense claim isn't strong ehough to trigger the Florida Law that removes trial from the table.
So the witnesses mean nothing?

There's only one witness who actually saw anything and all they saw was Martin on top of Zimmerman. No one witnessed how the fight began and no one, not even Zimmerman, has been able to show that Zimmerman's life was in sufficient danger to warrant lethal action.

Oh, if (see you're iffing a lot too) those were the only facts...
I'm sorry, but there is no "if" from what I said in relation to the story. Nobody was helping him. He could not see any help coming. He is screaming for help. It's already shown that Trayvon straight up beats him in the fighting part, with his head getting smashed. There was no other recourse but wait for serious injury or hope that the person who is attacking you decides "Fuck it, I gotta watch some basketball"

Or he could do something else like blocking Martin's attacks until the police arrive (which you yourself stated wouldn't be long since Zimmerman had already called the police) or try to talk to Martin to make him stop or anything other than pulling out a gun and shooting someone who hadn't actually done anything that threatened Zimmerman's life.

The reasonable belief must either be based on current serious injury (which there was hardly visible injury) or future injury. Nothing about his circumstances indicated that he was in imminent danger of serious injury or worse. Being beaten up ina fight you helped pick does not rise to those grounds.
"Or future injury"

You know, kinda like the part where the back of the head is being slammed against the ground. Zimmerman was incapacitated and screaming for help, and Trayvon wouldn't let up. That is clear indication that Trayvon intended to harm. This isn't being beaten up in a fight. When fights go to the ground, and somebody ends up unable or unwilling to fight back, it poses the risk of serious injury.

You keep saying that his head was being slammed against the ground as if Martin had simply grabbed Zimmerman's head and started smashing it against a rock repeatedly. There's no injury or witness report to support that. Unless something new has come up recently that I didn't see the only evidence that Zimmerman hit his head was the police officer who reported that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head but there's no injury supporting that and Zimmerman never went to the hospital to treat this supposed head wound.

That's right you don't need one. But having one makes self defense rise to lethal force much easier, and more definitively.
Oh no, the person used lethal force when the other person was bashing his head into the ground with no help in sight.

See above.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 04:13 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, but based on Zimmerman's aggressive following of Martin, I don't believe that Zimemrman is as helpless the victim as he would like us to believe. The lead up is important, and creates significant doubt to his story.

No, it doesn't. Following someone is not an act of aggression. Asking what someone is doing is not an act of aggression. Just because Zimmerman decided to do these things does not mean or even suggest that he started the fight, especially when there's no evidence showing he did. You can't arrest someone based on speculation of what he might have done. There has to be some corroborating testimony or evidence.

No, the lack of those facts means that we cannot default to Zimmerman being guilty because of it.
That is not what's being argued here.

The lack of evidence doesn't justify an arrest, either.

Who said any scenario? This is a specific scenario that involves no help being around, with your only option being to shoot, or pose a very serious risk of getting killed or paralyzed.
Oh, if (see you're iffing a lot too) those were the only facts...

You have facts to the contrary? That Zimmerman started the fight or that Zimmerman could have freed himself at any time but chose not to? Show us, then.
Saying that "they might exist" or "they would only magically appear once a trial started" is not an answer.

The reasonable belief must either be based on current serious injury (which there was hardly visible injury) or future injury. Nothing about his circumstances indicated that he was in imminent danger of serious injury or worse. Being beaten up ina fight you helped pick does not rise to those grounds.

There you go again. You didn't address any of Racist's points about headsmashing being potentially lethal or how it may not always leave giant bruises visible to some security camera. Now you're calling it a fight when it was a totally one-sided beating.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:47 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 04:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: Now you're calling it a fight when it was a totally one-sided beating.

And you know this how?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:48 PM Reply

Now two voice experts have come forward stating that the voice crying for help in the 911 tapes is not that of Zimmerman.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:53 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 04:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it doesn't.

Yes, it actually does for most reasonable people I would think.

Following someone is not an act of aggression.

No, but one does have to ask what he's doing following someone when he is not a police officer, has two deadly weapons (his car, and a loaded gun), and was told there was no need (and thus no reason) for him to be following Martin. Let's also not forget (lest someone tries to use the voluntary position he had in the voluntary organization as a defense) that it is AGAINST his own organizations playbook to do what he did. These are important facts that seem to never be truly touched on by Zimmerman defenders.

Asking what someone is doing is not an act of aggression.

No, but following someone with two deadly weapons leading up to it...well, that looks more then a bit suspicious doesn't it? I think it does. Certainly it bears way more investigation then the Sanford PD was willing to do.

Just because Zimmerman decided to do these things does not mean or even suggest that he started the fight,

It doesn't indeed. However that IS what the testimony and witnesses against him are for...or did you mistakenly think that people are just assuming because of the following and the questioning that those are the only reasons people believe Zimmerman started the situation...I gotta say, give folks a little more credit...and you know, how about we argue all the facts in the case so far instead of just the ones that are convenient to personal theories and what not?

especially when there's no evidence showing he did.

So those pesky witnesses and Treyvon's girlfriend who gave a sworn statement and will speak at trial are liars? Oh, I'm so glad we got that cleared up already.

You can't arrest someone based on speculation of what he might have done. There has to be some corroborating testimony or evidence.

There is actually from what I can see. Quite a bit. But hey, they at least could have brought him in for questioning, you don't need an arrest warrant for that.

The lack of evidence doesn't justify an arrest, either.

It did justify more questioning and investigation the the PD did in this case. Isn't that a fair statement?

You have facts to the contrary? That Zimmerman started the fight or that Zimmerman could have freed himself at any time but chose not to? Show us, then.

Well, there is what Treyvon's g/f heard on the phone with him. I think there's in general something also to be said for the fact that Zimmerman could have easily not gotten into this situation by simply ceasing his pursuit once he'd reported in to 911.

There you go again. You didn't address any of Racist's points about headsmashing being potentially lethal or how it may not always leave giant bruises visible to some security camera. Now you're calling it a fight when it was a totally one-sided beating.

Huh? See, Racist's "points" about head smashing seem to stem from the idea that Zimmerman's story is 100% the truth. It assumes that Zimmerman is somehow incapable of lying and tells the truth always. You're on the one hand criticizing people from rushing to judgement before all the facts are in, and with a lack of evidence...and then making a judgement, with a lack of evidence. Good times. Never mind that to me the logical position is that Zimmerman is on the shakiest possible ground here (he's pursued a kid with no real authority to do so, he's entered into a situation that caused a confrontation, and he's shot this kid to death...also bonus, he's half-white and the kid is black), seems to me he's got a fuck of a reason to exagerrate, fabricate, and obfuscate. But of course, I grant that just because he has great and solid reasons to do so, doesn't mean he actually did.

The other thing about this that interests me is that suddenly the issue of "rushing to judgement" is coming up here. Yet in other sensationalized cases (like Casey Anthony) people seemed very ready to believe she did it universally, and nobody was complaining about that fact whatsoever. I also don't recall that much bitching about the way the media portrayed the case either, how it blared the fact that she was guilty. Yet in a white on black crime...we've got a lot of people complaining about all those things...and a lot of them happen to be white...oh, I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 1st, 2012 @ 11:54 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 03:32 PM, djack wrote: Martin started running when he realized Zimmerman was following him in his truck,

Where do you get this from? Because Martin's girlfriend is willing to testify that Martin actually DIDN'T run at any time, even when she pleaded with him TO run. Just curious :)


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 12:10 AM Reply

At 4/1/12 11:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 4/1/12 03:32 PM, djack wrote: Martin started running when he realized Zimmerman was following him in his truck,
Where do you get this from? Because Martin's girlfriend is willing to testify that Martin actually DIDN'T run at any time, even when she pleaded with him TO run. Just curious :)

The tape of Zimmerman's 911 call. It was when Zimmerman was in his car telling the police that Martin seemed suspicious and was "looking around", then Martin looked right at Zimmerman and shortly afterward Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was running (it's also at this point that the sound of air rushing past the mic of Zimmerman's phone indicates that either he's running or there's a strong wind and the noise manages to cover up what may or may not be Zimmerman using a racial slur).

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 01:40 AM Reply

At 4/2/12 12:35 AM, Austerity wrote:
At 4/1/12 02:48 PM, MrFlopz wrote:
The fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by stalking Martin... Zim wasn't minding his own business when he got attacked by some random person. Martin attacked because he felt threatened by a stranger following him. The details of the encounter itself are unknown but it is a fact that Zimmerman was following Martin before the incident.
Who cares if he wasn't minding his own business? Not minding your own business does not warrant an attack, and defending yourself is warranted when you are being attacked. If I feel threatened by someone following me then I don't attack them, I stop and wait until they've passed or whatever. If someone attacks someone then the other person deserves to defend themself.

Well you don't know the details of the encounter. If a man is stalking you with a gun, that warrants an attack in self defense. Again, you don't know whether Martin knew about he weapon. If a man was following him it could have been for any reason. Maybe he wanted to rob him? Why is it self defense when Zimmerman, the man who initiated the conflict, shoots Martin, but it is not self defense when Martin tries to fight off a crazy stalker?


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 02:22 AM Reply

At 4/2/12 01:40 AM, MrFlopz wrote:
Well you don't know the details of the encounter. If a man is stalking you with a gun, that warrants an attack in self defense. Again, you don't know whether Martin knew about he weapon. If a man was following him it could have been for any reason. Maybe he wanted to rob him? Why is it self defense when Zimmerman, the man who initiated the conflict, shoots Martin, but it is not self defense when Martin tries to fight off a crazy stalker?

for one if Trayvon Martin knew about the gun, he was incredibly stupid to attack. (not a likely scenario)

Also, if Zimmerman had the gun drawn (doubtful) and Martin attacked, he would have either shot him right then and there, or he would have dropped the gun if he was knocked down. if he had the gun drawn and safety off, odds are it would have gone off when he hit the ground. However, the gun never went off, except for when Trayvon got shot.

either way, this is gonna be one of those interesting trials (assuming it gets that far, and it will, eventually) the media is gonna make a circus on it, and Zimmerman will either be acquitted and be forced into hiding for the rest of his life, or he'll be convicted and end up filing thousands of appeals.

either way, once the trial is over, it'll be just like any other media circus, you'll hear about it for about a month after the trial is over then it'll vanish as quickly as it appeared and everyone will more or less forget about it and move on to the next big thing.


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 Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:12 PM Reply

At 4/2/12 02:22 AM, Korriken wrote: for one if Trayvon Martin knew about the gun, he was incredibly stupid to attack. (not a likely scenario)

Actually you are wrong there. If that was the case, Martin sees a man following him in a neighborhood he doesn't live in and the man appraoches him with a gun? Martin could run, but I'd bet you $1,000,000 that a bullet travels faster than he does. If Martin felt cornered for any reason, fight is a better option that flight.

Also, if Zimmerman had the gun drawn (doubtful) and Martin attacked, he would have either shot him right then and there, or he would have dropped the gun if he was knocked down. if he had the gun drawn and safety off, odds are it would have gone off when he hit the ground. However, the gun never went off, except for when Trayvon got shot.

You don't have to have your gun drawn to give off the impression that you're armed and willing to shoot. Following someone in the middle of the night with the gun merely visible does that pretty well.

either way, this is gonna be one of those interesting trials (assuming it gets that far, and it will, eventually) the media is gonna make a circus on it, and Zimmerman will either be acquitted and be forced into hiding for the rest of his life, or he'll be convicted and end up filing thousands of appeals.

Yeah probably. Sad thing is that the circus will only get in the way of the truth. Then again 'truth' isn't necessarily the goal of legal proceedings.


either way, once the trial is over, it'll be just like any other media circus, you'll hear about it for about a month after the trial is over then it'll vanish as quickly as it appeared and everyone will more or less forget about it and move on to the next big thing.

Pfft. I'll be looking forward to the Forensic Files or 48 Hour Hard Evidence (or other true crime show) on it. You know they will make one should this go to trial.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:16 PM Reply

At 4/1/12 11:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Following someone is not an act of aggression.
No, but one does have to ask what he's doing following someone when he is not a police officer, has two deadly weapons (his car, and a loaded gun), and was told there was no need (and thus no reason) for him to be following Martin.

He's making a stupid choice that has a very good chance of ending badly, and it did. But that's not illegal. It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Asking what someone is doing is not an act of aggression.
No, but following someone with two deadly weapons leading up to it...well, that looks more then a bit suspicious doesn't it? I think it does. Certainly it bears way more investigation then the Sanford PD was willing to do.

I don't think it's suspicious. Driving a car and carrying a gun does not mean that person is going out looking for trouble.

It doesn't indeed. However that IS what the testimony and witnesses against him are for...or did you mistakenly think that people are just assuming because of the following and the questioning that those are the only reasons people believe Zimmerman started the situation...

That's what's been proposed so far by the people here.
As for the witnesses against him, I have to stipulate to the judgment of law enforcement. For whatever reason, either the district attorney, the police, or both, did not think the testimony portraying Martin as the victim was solid enough to make an arrest. Was that their decision to make? I think it can be, if it's apparent that those witnesses were in no position to really see anything or offer contradictory details. I think the position of the body and the location of the bullet would say more about which person was on top of the other at the time of the shooting.

So those pesky witnesses and Treyvon's girlfriend who gave a sworn statement and will speak at trial are liars?

Not necessarily. I don't see how Treyvon's girlfriend's testimony would be useful, considering that she wasn't even there but had to interpret voices on a cell phone, plus nothing she could say would be verifiable.

There is actually from what I can see. Quite a bit. But hey, they at least could have brought him in for questioning, you don't need an arrest warrant for that.

They did; that's what the police video is from.

It did justify more questioning and investigation the the PD did in this case. Isn't that a fair statement?

Define "more." Do we even know exactly what steps the police took, what possibilities they considered? What should the police have done that they did not yet had reason to do?

...I think there's in general something also to be said for the fact that Zimmerman could have easily not gotten into this situation by simply ceasing his pursuit once he'd reported in to 911.

It can be said that it was a stupid move, but not an illegal one.

Huh? See, Racist's "points" about head smashing seem to stem from the idea that Zimmerman's story is 100% the truth. It assumes that Zimmerman is somehow incapable of lying and tells the truth always. You're on the one hand criticizing people from rushing to judgement before all the facts are in, and with a lack of evidence and then making a judgement, with a lack of evidence.

Not at all. I'm agreeing with the police's and Sentinel's (they interviewed the key witness that identified Martin beating Zimmerman into the ground) original reports of the situation. This incident wasn't handled by one yokel officer, nor was the choice not to arrest decided by one. It was a whole team of officers and investigators that handled this. I don't think that incompetence, corruption, or racism are plausible reasons to doubt the final decision. I'll believe that they were doing their job properly until I have reason to believe otherwise, and I haven't seen any yet.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 04:23 PM Reply

At 4/2/12 12:35 AM, Austerity wrote: Who cares if he wasn't minding his own business? Not minding your own business does not warrant an attack, and defending yourself is warranted when you are being attacked. If I feel threatened by someone following me then I don't attack them, I stop and wait until they've passed or whatever. If someone attacks someone then the other person deserves to defend themself.

I have been in a situation where it appeared that someone was following me. Luckily, I knew the neighborhood pretty well (even though it had no streetlights which just made the situation creepier). This knowledge and the fact that the neighborhood was a block grid allowed me to escape. Even then, it wasn't very easy, and I am a pretty quick guy.

The picture at the top of this article shows that escape may not have been an option. It definitely is no trap, but it doesn't look like the easiest place to hide or elude either.

Furthermore, civil law (I haven't encountered this scenario in criminal, but I haven't looked) makes it clear that if there is a fear that a person may follow you and hurt you, you have the right to use force necessary to keep them from following you.

I also find it quite hypocritical too. Those who are saying that Martin should have run and not fought are the same folk that would applaud a woman for turning and fighting off a mugger with a kinfe or a gun. Really, what changed here?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:06 PM Reply

Enhanced ABC surveillance video shows gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

The same video where everyone said he was "uninjured."

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:52 PM Reply

At 4/2/12 05:06 PM, Memorize wrote: Enhanced ABC surveillance video shows gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

The same video where everyone said he was "uninjured."

Again, there is a clear shot, with the cleared up footage, of the back right of his head as he's initially getting out of the car that shows a clean head. Just like the first video, the wound doesn't seem to exist until he passes the back of the car.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Trayvon Martin case gets Ugly Apr. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:11 PM Reply

At 4/2/12 05:06 PM, Memorize wrote: Enhanced ABC surveillance video shows gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

The same video where everyone said he was "uninjured."

Once again, you have something that is probably nothing more than shadow given the fact that it's not visible any other time during the video. In fact there is another time during the video where the back of his head would be visible enough to show whether it's there or not and the ABC news banner covers his head up. For all we know they did this because those shadows aren't visible until he's at that angle. Those shadows are also in a different place and are a different shape from the previous one that was supposedly a head wound.

At 4/2/12 04:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: He's making a stupid choice that has a very good chance of ending badly, and it did. But that's not illegal. It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Making stupid decisions that get a person killed is actually grounds for charging someone with manslaughter. Just like someone driving while drunk is a stupid decision, if the drunk person gets into an accident that kills someone they can be charged with manslaughter. You've already stated that you don't think there should be any trial at all so explain to me why Zimmerman shouldn't even be charged with manslaughter.

I don't think it's suspicious. Driving a car and carrying a gun does not mean that person is going out looking for trouble.

Following someone you suspect of being a criminal onto another persons property does indicate that you're looking for trouble though.