At 4/28/12 01:17 AM, RacistBassist wrote: Right, it is reasonable to assume that Zimmerman would recognize that it was a black culture center that is part of a university he has never been to, with no distinct markings, and without it being a landmark

You can't admit it was a stupid thing to do, can you? ZimmermanâEUTMs supporters insist that this case is not about race, so why were ZimmermanâEUTMs supporters moved to vandalize a black cultural center, and why is Zimmerman endorsing this? What other âEUoedeedsâEU are ZimmermanâEUTMs supporters encouraged to commit in order to leave a âEUoedeep impression?âEU

When you're asking for citations about basics of the cases and anyone with a cursory knowledge of the case can tell you about it, it is just being dense. Go to the wikipedia page. It's a good start.

I'm asking you to cite me specific examples of blatant misinformation reported in the news, and you tell me to go to the wikipedia page. Okay... There is certainly bias (no channel/newspaper/radio is unbiased) but the only example I see here of blatant misinformation is that NBC guy who altered the original 911 call. He was fired for it.

Few are reporting it. You know, because none of them are doing the honest unbiased reporting?

Yeah your posts here are examples of unbiased reporting, lol.

Yeah you can see right there in the text that you quoted from my post i said "To the case, no" but kinda just glazed over the second half of it so uh good job I guess.

So basically it's a pure character attack

If it's not gonna be in the courtroom it's a pure character attack. Got it.

The words that flew out of the 911 dispatcher's mouth was "you don't have to do that." If I am talking to a 911 dispatcher, someone who is trained in dealing with emergency calls, I would interpret "you don't have to do that" to "you really should leave this to the cops, because you are not a cop."

So basically it all comes down to what you would do. Since when were you the final say on the law and what should and shouldn't be allowed?

No, I gave what I thought would be a rational and reasonable thing to assume. I guess not everybody is rational and reasonable.

You may think that, I think it has more to do with him feeling like a badass on patrol looking for trouble makers. You know, a wannabe cop. Walking around late at night with a gun.

Yeah, a neighborhood watch. You know, considering the several break-ins in the area.

Yeah, see what happens when you take the law into your own hands?

Here's the thing, you don't have to actually sustain severe injuries to feel threatened. I can easily shoot somebody who pulled a knife and only got in superficial cuts. Does that mean I wasn't at risk of being stabbed?

Not at all, but you're the one who said his head was being smashed on the pavement, and pointed out to a a picture of his head with blood on it as evidence that he was attacked, so uhh I guess what I'm saying is that sort of injury isn't very consistent with how you described it.

Trayvon also had the option to flee before head bash mode.

You don't even know if that happened.

Oh, and remember earlier when you said you didn't care how much money he raised? Here's a biased article about the nature of that $200k. Not looking good, actually. Bail money is often set based on how much a person is able to pay. Lying to a judge about an extra 200k lying around is a big no no, especially since the original amount was in part based on hardship from losing his job. The lawyer is claiming he had no knowledge of the money during the bail hearing, so lets hope he didn't get a check for 50k.

Look I can drag this on for 20 pages if I need to, but let's just make one thing clear here: none of us, not me, not you, not anyone posting in this thread knows all of the facts. We did not see everything that happened that night, and we may never actually know. The only thing we can do now is analyze the leak of information slowly dripping out from wherever it comes from and make our own theories that sound the most logical and probable, and everybody in american right now has their own idea of what logical and probable is. But one thing is for certain: if Zimmerman really is innocent (or acquitted), his life is essentially ruined and will have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt due to legal fees and what-have-you. This is objectively wrong no matter what your opinion of the man is. I don't know for 100% certain that Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2 (i certainly THINK he is) but I do know that no matter what the verdict is in this case Zimmerman is absolutely fucked. True. But then I think of Trayvon's family.

At 4/28/12 02:13 PM, RacistBassist wrote: It could have been random. Maybe the culture center organized an anti-Zimmerman march. Maybe a lot of the hoodie protest people were in the building.

So you just defended the fact that it was vandalized with a hypothetical situation where the cultural center organized an anti-zimmerman march (it didn't), and justified the graffiti because of retaliation from a pro-zimmerman group? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Showing old pictures is misinformation

No it isn't.

Bringing up arrest record without mentioning the acquittals is misinformation

No it isn't.

Reporting he called over 40 times in 1 month is misinformation

Yes it is.

Any single station that has used the old pictures. The arrest record. The edited tapes. The lack of bringing up the eye witnesses supporting Zimmerman

Misleading is not misinformation. That actually WAS a picture of Martin, right? You know the picture, the one where he looked like a babyface. Not the big huge black football player picture. It isn't misinformation, you just know how people are going to perceive it (innocent looking black kid) which goes against your own idea (trouble making blackie, which is better represented in the "newer" pics),

So what was the point if not a direct attack to his character?

Do you not understand what it says about someone who thanks a bunch of people for vandalizing property in his name? Are you really not getting this?

You're acting like you're the epitome of logic. When somebody tells you you aren't required to do something, it is not an order to not do it. It's pretty simple.

That's how you want to perceive me, which fine, but it's also wrong. I kinda already explained how I totally understand it's not an order, but it's still something you should strongly consider, especially who it's coming from (a trained 911 dispatcher).

Yeah, see what happens when you take the law into your own hands?

Yeah, you end up getting attacked for doing a civic duty.

No, you get accused of wrongly killed a 17 year old child.

Re-read this thread and the one in general. It's been gone over. You can punch something like metal and not receive any damage. More hits increases the chance of damage. You can easily cut your knuckles and bruise them before breaking your hand.

Concrete is a completely different material than metal, number one. Number two, the amount of force in a punch and the force when your head is being smashed into concrete by a person is two completely, incomparable things. There would be massive head trauma if he was being smashed into the concrete to the point of him fearing his life.

You don't even know if that happened.

No, we do know that happened, judging if what his girlfriend, who is on his side, said is true.

You literally just said "we know it's true if this thing she said is true." What if it isn't true? We don't know it's true.

It's very easy to, when you're dealing with courts and locked up, to not know that you are currently receiving donations or the amount of money you are getting. Nobody expected him to get as much as he did. Besides, Zimmerman set it up, not his lawyers.

It says in the article that he was spending the money. It's in a paypal account. He absolutely knew how much money he had.

I love how the anti-Zimmerman side went from full on crusade against him, to "We don't know all the facts" the moment the audio was found to be edited, the video came out, and the picture of the back of his head came out.

I actually wrote that piece so we could find common ground, but I guess you're a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian. There you go with the word "crusade" again. Very charged. Anyway, you seem to think I'm picking a "side" here. Like, being anti-zimmerman is some ingroup you join solely just to join a tribe or something. It isn't. I don't think his version of events make sense. The things he has been doing haven't been making sense. Stand Your Ground doesn't apply. He did something he was told he didn't have to do, and a 17 year old kid was killed because of it. The kid was looking for his father's house. Zimmerman was suspicious of him because he was a young black kid wearing a hoodie in a gated community.

At 4/28/12 04:34 PM, Korriken wrote: yes, they are.

Just because you would like to think it is to better fit your narrative doesn't mean it is.

that has used the old pictures. The arrest record. The edited tapes. The lack of bringing up the eye witnesses supporting Zimmerman

Misleading is not misinformation. That actually WAS a picture of Martin, right?

an old picture, used to get a "omfg this guy couldn't hurt a fly, how dare zimmerman shoot him!" reaction.

Yeah I know, I kinda explained right after that sentence, but you conveniently ignored it.

If you are 60 years old, apply to a modelling agency with a face that looks like hamburger meat, and give them a photo shortly after you turned 18, is that misinformation? it IS a picture of YOU afterall. yes, it is misinformation because that is not what you look like anymore.

What? How is that analogy applicable at all? How does auditioning for a photo shoot have to do with what picture a news story runs with? How old was he in that picture? You're comparing a 60 year old woman sending in a photo of her on her 18th birthday for a modelling company? How did you think this was at all the same thing? And honestly your outrage over the picture is kinda disturbing. You're critical of the collective media for using this picture because he looks....like a nice young man? That's your argument? I mean it's one thing to point out WHY they would use that picture, but to get disgusted with it? You're upset that people think Martin looks like a nice young man? Why? Is it because you would rather him look like this?

Newer pics are more accurate. the fact the media didn't pull the old pic in light of the new one is misleading and its misinformation.

Misinformation is not the same as Disinformation. I should have used Misinformation vs Disinformation instead of misleading vs misinformation, my error.

I understand it has no bearing in court.

This has been established many many times. By me. Why not instead talk about the bearing it has on himself?

maybe Zimmerman should have put his hands on front of his face, called for help as Martin was beating his head against the ground, instead of defending himself against Babyface Martin.

You're assuming that the beating even took place, which we don't know. I mean I know you're never going to be skeptical over whether or not it happened because I know it's essential for your narrative that he was being viciously beaten but I would at least like to make you ponder the possibility before blocking it out of your head.

hotdog/corndog.

Not at all, I know it's frustrating to have your arguments picked apart but c'mon, let's not just fall back on "it's just semantics!" or "character assassination!" or "apples and oranges!" because that's just intellectually lazy.

also, having your head slammed against the grass won't make your head bleed unless there is something in the grass that your head is being slammed on. I should know I've had my head slammed against many things in fights. never once did grass draw blood.

That sucks, Zimmerman told police he has his head slammed against concrete, not grass.

irrelevant. being told "you don't have to" isn't the same as "don't do it" the dispatcher can't tell you to do or not to do anything. they can only give you a suggestion which you do not have to follow.

How is it irrelevant? I have explained very clearly that I understand he was not given and order.What I am saying is, if I was patrolling my neighborhood, and I see suspicious activity, and I am on the phone with a dispatcher to report said suspicious activity, and the suspicious person in question starts running, and the dispatcher (who is trained to handle emergency calls says to me you don't have to do that I am going to follow the suggestion. I certainly know I have the option to disregard, but why would I? The cops are on the way. The dispatcher advised me not to.

if the 17 year old kid attacked first, he got himself killed.

Y'know, it doesn't really work that way. Actually it doesn't even apply.

Or perhaps he was suspicious of him because criminals very often wear hoodies to help conceal their identity and there had been a string of burglaries in the area. I love how you are "undecided" and yet insist he went after and eventually shot martin because he was black.

Undecided? No. I have varying degrees of certainty over what happened that night. I also know that I reserve the right to be completely wrong. We all do. This isn't a courtroom and I'm not on a jury.

you suck at hiding bias.

This is coming from the guy who went on a silly tirade against liberals that wasn't even worth responding to.

At 4/28/12 05:29 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Asks what possible reasons could have been
Says person is defending

I don't know what this means but I have a feeling you were trying to make fun of me, or something.

Yes, it quite literally is. When saying "teen" and then showing when he was in his early teens, it is extremely misleading.

By definition, no, it really isn't.

It's a character attack that neglects context and what actually happened

Do you know what actually happened?

Let's apply Occam's Razor for a second. What seems more likely, that he knew specifically where the graffiti was, and that he was happy the black culture center was the target, or he just picked a picture that said justice for him. What does it say about those against him who are ok with the hit on him? The random beatings that have been done in Trayvons memory?

It is certainly possible Zimmerman didn't know where the source of that image comes from.

Its also quite possible he knows exactly where it comes from, especially in the context that the other image comes from a Terry Jones rally. That is a mighty big coincidence back to back. Is it concrete proof? No. But it certainly does make me think.

Regardless of what I think of happened that night you have to be out of your mind to think that I or even a light majority of people think it's good that there have been racially charged beatings due to this case. I do not support it and it obviously reflects very poorly of them. They haven't done much critical thinking about the case. it accomplished nothing.

Says they understand it's not an order
Calls it an order

What the hell? What on earth? Where? When? Read my post above you. Jesus christ.

Trained 9-11 dispatcher? You're acting like they are an actual officer with authority and not just a relay of information.

...no I'm not? You think dispatchers are just thrown into a pit? Good luck, I hope you know how to handle these emergency calls! Uhh, no. They are trained in how to deal with every imaginable scenario.

So basically since bad things sometimes happen we should never do that thing. We should never drive cars since you might get in an accident where you aren't at fault

Yikes. Getting in a car and knowing the assumption of risk and wearing a seatbelt in anticipation of said risk is not the same thing that brought George Zimmerman to think it was OK to stalk Martin in his SUV with his gun on his person.

I'm sorry, but getting your head smashed once with the other person showing no intent to stop is easily enough justification to fear for your life. Have you ever hit your head on concrete, for whatever reason? It's very easy to not get injured from it. It is also very easy to end up injured from it. Same thing with being cut by a knife. You can easily sustain only very minor injuries, but that does not mean the threat still is not there.

The defense would need to prove that there is no intent to stop in order for it to be a valid self defense case, and I don't see enough evidence that suggests that that is the case here.

Here's the deal. We either have his girlfriend telling the truth and Trayvon not running. Or we have his girlfriend lying and nobody knows what happened at that point.

Agreed. We don't know crucial pieces of information.

Because as we all know, you have access to your paypal account while in jail. Yes, now he is using that money. Probably for defense funds, the bail, or just living considering his entire life is a wreck right now.

It was at the bond hearing. I think it's pretty plausible he knew damn so he could get a $150,000 bond instead of a $1,000,000 bond (which he'll probably get anyway, regardless).

Ok, let me use the non-charged variant. The media purposefully spread disinformation and was quick to judgement and attempted to sway public opinion before all the facts came forward. Now, which is quicker for the sake of everybody, what I just typed, or calling it a crusade? I guess I could call it a jihad, witch hunt, or some sort of McCarthy reference, but crusade is just oh so much funner.

You criticize the collective media for being sensationalist, but you have to understand calling this a 'crusade" or "jihad" is, in fact, sensationalist.

SYG does apply so far, unless the girlfriends phone call brings new light to the case.

Stand Your Ground is a terrible piece of legislation. The court needs to prove that you were not in fear of your life, rather than you were in fear of your life. Here's a pretty good breakdown of the law and it's effects.

If I see a purse snatching, every single cop in the world would say you are not required to attempt to stop the thief if they are running away towards your direction.

Absolutely but these are two completely different situations.

If something happens between you two and you end up shooting the person, that does not make you liable.

haha, really?

Zimmerman was suspicious because he matched the description of several previous break-ins in his area, and it was a kid he never seen before in his area. Him being black had absolutely zero to do with it besides the previous break-in having somebody match a similar description. If there wasn't that previous break-in by a tall young black male, then sure, it'd probably be racially profiling. But, considering that someone with a similar description did it, that goes out the window.

I dunno man, I think the reason why this country is so divided over this is because of it's racial implications. Is it amplified by the media? Absolutely, but only because it's what everyone is paying attention to. This isn't a "chicken or the egg" kind of question: the outrage comes first, then the exploitation by networks.

At 4/28/12 05:40 PM, Korriken wrote: it's more closely related than you think. they depicted martin as a featherweight 4 foot tall boy. he was depicted as weak and helpless when it was obviously not the case. and it was done intentionally. misinformation at its finest.

Good job ignoring everything I just said, I guess.

he looked about 12-14, which funny enough most people thought he was 14 in the beginning until it turned out his age was 17.

He "looked" it, but how old was he actually in that picture?

if you're 60 years old and want the modelling company to think you're hot enough for a face to face interview...

haha what the hell, this is the dumbest thing ever. This 60 year old woman tricked the modelling agents to set up an interview...and then what? They're gonna know what she really looks like when she gets there. What good did she accomplish? What the hell is this?

How did you think this was at all the same thing?

simple. its called misleading the target audience with fraudulent information.

I already showed you the difference but you don't really seem that interested in it, I guess.

if it was a current picture, I would say "well, that's his current picture." you want my argument? let's see you answer this question without resorting to trying to appeal to emotions and sidestepping it. "Why did the media, even after getting a current picture of Trayvon, continue to use the babyface picture?"

Here's a recent picture of him and he still kinda looks like a, uhh, "babyface" to be honest. And they used the picture because of what sells: this dead 17 year old doesn't fit the kneejerk reaction image of "young male black male (thug)."

the point is, Journalists, those who job it is to report the news in a fair, unbiased, and accurate way are knowingly using old information and leaving out key information to paint a skewed picture of the situation.

"Old information" is not "a picture taken 2 years ago." What the hell is the difference? This isn't a picture from when he was 5 years old, good lord. And what key information are there shady journalists leaving out?

None. there's your answer.

There it is indeed. Sounds more like you sticking your fingers in your ear and going "lalalala" but, like you said, there's my answer.

I would say the picture of the back of his head, the picture which had a time AND gps coordinate stamp, proving that it was taken just after the gun went off, before cops could arrive and paramedics could clean his head is pretty solid proof that something happened.

This isn't in question. Something happened, obviously.

Also, the guy who took the picture noted the gunpowder burns on Martin's clothes, which is a solid indication that the shot happened at very close range, as in, hand to hand combat range. so yeah, the fight happened. do your homework and drop the emotional appeal.

or its pointless.

Well I was referring to something you were doing, so, I'm glad you agree.

well, there is that picture the "zimmerman must die" crowd didn't want to see ("graphic" image aka there's some blood on his head)

"Zimmerman-must-die-crowd?" Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to hold an extreme position? Do you always box and categorize people that way?

to keep him in your sight so he doesn't find a good hiding place and wait out the cops and then commit his crime?

Or just wait for the cops to come instead of being a bonafide vigilante?

Undecided? No. I have varying degrees of certainty over what happened that night. I also know that I reserve the right to be completely wrong. We all do. This isn't a courtroom and I'm not on a jury.

true. we'll see what happens next year at the trial, if one even occurs.

There will absolutely be a trial.

However, I do expect the charges will be lowered to manslaughter before it begins. the "special" prosecutor probably charged murder in an attempt to try a plea bargain because she knew she had to charge zimmerman to quell the local black community from rioting,

Wow, I'm kinda speechless at this. I agree about the plea deal and I personally don't think charges will be lowered, but why do you think blacks are a bunch of savage animals? What would make you think they would start "rioting" over this? What signs can you give me examples of that were clear indications of potential riots?

Interesting how a guy who got himself into this situation because of a desire to see law and order preserved and respected (I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that that was the reason for joining his neighborhood watch, and not some desire to be a power mad fuck shit...though I guess there's some evidence for that too), and talks about justice and all that...is openly showing, and condoning the commission of a crime (graffati of ANY kind, with ANY message, is in fact a crime. Punishable by fine and sometimes jail time).

But I guess when it's in support of HIM...crime is ok, right?

Laughing at all the guilty until proven innocent in this thread.

At 4/29/12 12:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Interesting how a guy who got himself into this situation because of a desire to see law and order preserved and respected (I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that that was the reason for joining his neighborhood watch, and not some desire to be a power mad fuck shit...though I guess there's some evidence for that too), and talks about justice and all that...is openly showing, and condoning the commission of a crime (graffati of ANY kind, with ANY message, is in fact a crime. Punishable by fine and sometimes jail time).

But I guess when it's in support of HIM...crime is ok, right?

The problem is, the court needs to decide if what he did was indeed a crime - or protected under self-defense laws. It isn't as if Zimmerman has admitted to murder/manslaughter, and he has support because of it. There are many people who believe what he did was wrong, but not a crime; and you can only go to prison for a crime. Nevertheless, I am confident Florida will revisit the laws if he is not convicted.

At 4/29/12 07:21 AM, Silverdust wrote: The problem is, the court needs to decide if what he did was indeed a crime - or protected under self-defense laws. It isn't as if Zimmerman has admitted to murder/manslaughter, and he has support because of it.

Technically self-defense involves the commission of a crime. An affirmative defense admits that a crime was committed, but there were circumstances that society has decided should absolve the person who comitted that crime of any liability. Self defense is an affirmative defense.

So Z is saying that he did commited homicide, but the circumstances of self defense should absolve him of liability.

At 4/29/12 05:04 AM, stinkychops wrote: Laughing at all the guilty until proven innocent in this thread.

Guilty until proven innocent stopped applying when Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon Martin. Now the defense has made an affirmative claim - self defense - that they must prove. The burden of proof lies with the defense now.

At 4/29/12 05:04 AM, stinkychops wrote: Laughing at all the guilty until proven innocent in this thread.

Technically, with affirmative defenses, it is guilty until proven innocent. He's admitted to killing martin by intentionally shooting him. Now he must prove that the circumstances of this intentional homicide were usch that the self defense defense should absolve him of any criminal liability.

There was another case of the Stand Ur Ground law concerning a black woman protecting herself from her husband. She didn't even shoot him (she missed) and she got 20 years.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground -for-marissa-alexander/?xid=gonewsedit

Contrast that with an outside race shooting a black person - it literally took worldwide protests for the guy to even get arrested.

Just sayin, for anybody thinkin racism doesn't exist or something.

At 4/30/12 06:10 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: There was another case of the Stand Ur Ground law concerning a black woman protecting herself from her husband. She didn't even shoot him (she missed) and she got 20 years.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground -for-marissa-alexander/?xid=gonewsedit

Contrast that with an outside race shooting a black person - it literally took worldwide protests for the guy to even get arrested.

Just sayin, for anybody thinkin racism doesn't exist or something.

also, for the people who like to go "oh YEAH? well what about BLACK RACISTS?!?!" and then link an article from a local news station about revenge beatings (not saying this doesnt/didnt/will not happen nor am i saying i support/endorse/condone said beatings nor am i saying they are justified in their actions) answer me this: of all those attacks, how many of the attackers got arrested? how long did it take for their arrest? then answer me this: how long did it take for zimmerman to get arrested?

At 4/30/12 06:10 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: There was another case of the Stand Ur Ground law concerning a black woman protecting herself from her husband. She didn't even shoot him (she missed) and she got 20 years.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground -for-marissa-alexander/?xid=gonewsedit

What that doesn't tell you is that since admitted she fired a warning shot(the shot that missed), that's evidence enough that she was not in fear of her life thus the Stand Your Ground Law would not be applicable in that situation. The fact she's getting 20 years in prison is a result of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for aggravated assault with a weapon. However, if an appellate court decides that the law does apply to this case, it gives both this case and the Zimmerman case would take the Stand Your Ground Law to its logical extremes.

At 4/30/12 06:10 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: There was another case of the Stand Ur Ground law concerning a black woman protecting herself from her husband. She didn't even shoot him (she missed) and she got 20 years.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground -for-marissa-alexander/?xid=gonewsedit

Contrast that with an outside race shooting a black person - it literally took worldwide protests for the guy to even get arrested.

Just sayin, for anybody thinkin racism doesn't exist or something.

First, stand your ground laws were designed to protect people who were forced to defend themselves outside of their home. She was at home and therefore stand your ground doesn't apply. Second, the entire incident was he said she said in the court and all of her previous actions (like altering the restraining order while she was pregnant and going back despite the fact that she wasn't permitted to have contact with him as a condition of her bond) indicate that she wasn't afraid for her life making lethal force unnecessary and also preventing stand your ground from applying. Third, and final, the Trayvon Martin case was fucked up from the start with cops not doing their jobs properly while this case started with Gray telling the cops that Marissa had shot him and his sons. That's a big difference. Had she not altered the restraining order and had she not broken bail by going to Gray's house and getting into a fight with him she would have been able to make a strong case for self defense (still not stand your ground but battered womens syndrome can go a long way for reasonable doubt) and gotten off but her actions before and after the incident makes it seem unlikely that she was truly afraid for her life. Without that reasonable fear for her life the use of a gun is excessive force which makes the charge seem accurate to me ("aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm" carries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida).

Domestic Violence cases are much more complicated than Stand Your Ground (i.e. self defense for gun toting idiots) cases.

The dynamic of the victim and the perpetrator of the assault/murder being in an intimate relationship, the dynamic that this current victim is usually the perpetrator, and the current perptrator is usually the victim, and the choices that DV victims make, such as violating restraining orders and no contact orders by getting back with their abuser, all serve to throw a massive monkey wrench in the traditional stand your ground philosophy.

Djack, the fact that the woman was at her home doesn't automatically erase the Stand Your Ground law of Florida. The law has no distinction for in home and out of home acts. If it did somehow automitcally rule out Stand Your Ground, the Castle rule would apply. I get the feeling the issue here was both one of credibility and part of the typical DV confusion. The questions like "Well, if she were in such danger, why did she go back?" are examples of how DV confuses most people who do not understand the dynamic.

The end point still stands. The domestic violence case doesn't provide much of a comparison to the Zimmerman/Martin case.

At 4/30/12 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Djack, the fact that the woman was at her home doesn't automatically erase the Stand Your Ground law of Florida. The law has no distinction for in home and out of home acts. If it did somehow automitcally rule out Stand Your Ground, the Castle rule would apply.

Being at home, being followed by an aggressor, and having no escape route seem to create a vastly different scenario from what Stand Your Ground was designed to cover. I would expect the Castle rule to apply in this case unless Florida has a law specifically for DV situations. Unless I'm drastically mistaking the purpose and wording of Stand Your Ground my point, both specific and general, still stands. Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in this case and the claim that this decision was a racial bias in the judicial system is a complete obfuscation of the facts of both cases.

I get the feeling the issue here was both one of credibility and part of the typical DV confusion. The questions like "Well, if she were in such danger, why did she go back?" are examples of how DV confuses most people who do not understand the dynamic.

I understand the dynamic of DV, but she wasn't with him for 2 months while pregnant but she still chose to change the restraining order so that she could be in contact with him. When women get out of a violent relationship the dynamic changes because they're no longer in a situation where they depend upon the abuser (that dependence generally being the psychological state that compels a woman to stay with an abusive spouse along with the fear that the spouse will find them and kill them for leaving). Had it been a day or a week where she wasn't with him it would be a different situation but she lived with her mother for 2 months. 2 months is simply too long for her to be away from him for me to believe that she still felt dependent on him to the point where she had no choice but to go back. Choosing to fire a warning shot and going back despite bail requirements forbidding it says to me that she wasn't afraid for her life.

At 4/30/12 08:23 PM, djack wrote: Being at home, being followed by an aggressor, and having no escape route seem to create a vastly different scenario from what Stand Your Ground was designed to cover. I would expect the Castle rule to apply in this case unless Florida has a law specifically for DV situations. Unless I'm drastically mistaking the purpose and wording of Stand Your Ground my point, both specific and general, still stands.

Stand Your Ground did up to 2 things. If Florida had a retreat requirement for Self Defense, SYG removed it. SYG also made self defense more than just an affirmative defense. It made self defense an initial method to bar prosecution altogether, requiring a higher burden of proof just to arrest.

If the case were not a DV case, SYG would have cleanly applied. DV mucks everything up.

I understand the dynamic of DV, but ...

DV is much more predatory than you give it credit for. While 2 months is a long time, it isn't enough to sever some abusive relationships. Victims of DV usually have something missing in their life, whether it be a father figure, a stable home life, or just a ceertain threshold level of confidence to crutch on. Abusers see these weaknesses and intentionally play upon them to build a relationship where the victim is so tied that even after several months of separation, they can be hopelessly drawn to the abuser in spite of the abuse. One way that abusers do this is that they don't abuse contantly. They do so in waves. That way every abusive period is buffered by a long period where the abuser fills the needs of the victim and is "perfect". The better they can pull off this honeymoon period, the more abuse and the stronger the dependance. Many abusers well into an abusive relationship can switch from honeymoon to near-fatal abuse in the span of a day. It is this dynamic that is rarely understood by outsiders and those who are not taught about the subject. (At the DA's office we were taught this as a precaution for what to look out for and how to present a case to the jury in such a manner as to avoid the usual confusion.)

At 4/29/12 05:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/29/12 05:04 AM, stinkychops wrote: Laughing at all the guilty until proven innocent in this thread.

Technically, with affirmative defenses, it is guilty until proven innocent. He's admitted to killing martin by intentionally shooting him. Now he must prove that the circumstances of this intentional homicide were usch that the self defense defense should absolve him of any criminal liability.

Good point. Perhaps I'll say speculation, instead.
fillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfiller fillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfiller fillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfiller

This whole case is a perfect example of how Florida's Stand Your Ground law is completely broken.

The part of the law that restricts an arrest without higher proof that the self defense claim is wrong handcuffs the police and the prosecutor and keeps them from properly doing their job.

It appears that Stand Your Ground was born out of a complete lack of understanding how the law works, or a brazen attempt to put gun owners above the law. There are numerous affirmative defenses that are just as valid, if not more valid than self defense is on the whole, but they have to go to trial and be proven by the defendant. Duress is one of these other extreme affirmative defenses. Duress occurs when the perpetrator is forced to make a choice between two evils, such as shoot this other guy, or we'll shoot you/your family. Stand Your Ground doesn't protect against this far more concerning scenario.

Zimmerman should have been arrested the moment he admitted to shooting Martin, adn then the burden should have been, from the very beginning, to establish his self defense claim. It is not the prosecution's burden to defeat the defense before the defendant has actually brought it up.

Under normal law, the amount of controversy in this case would have been next to nothing.

At 5/1/12 02:14 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 5/1/12 11:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Zimmerman should have been arrested the moment he admitted to shooting Martin, adn then the burden should have been, from the very beginning, to establish his self defense claim. It is not the prosecution's burden to defeat the defense before the defendant has actually brought it up.

Here's the thing though, even if they held him longer then they did, he still would have end up being released with the wounds, witnesses, and his prior calling to the police all strengthening his story of self defense.

He would have gotten bail but there still would have been a trial which would have made a huge difference in this case. There wouldn't be people calling the judicial system racist over this case, the Black Panthers wouldn't have put out a reward encouraging people to kill George Zimmerman, the argument that makes up 90% of this thread would never have happened, and there wouldn't be 2 months of media coverage biasing whatever jury winds up being dragged into the trial.

At 5/1/12 02:14 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Here's the thing though, even if they held him longer then they did, he still would have end up being released with the wounds, witnesses, and his prior calling to the police all strengthening his story of self defense.

I have no problem with a defendant being released from custody after an arrest. In fact, the vast majority of defendants are released between their arrest and their trial/hearings. There is a big difference between this conditional release and not even pursuing charges.

What dismayed me, and most people here, is how the police and the DA appeared to immediately throw the hot potato once the term "self defense" was used. It appeared that Zimmernman was going to be let off completely free, without even an arraignment to answer at.

At 5/12/12 01:05 PM, Korriken wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-s entencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
and so the woman who fired a warning shot got 20 years.

That was already brought up and put to bed on page nine of this thread.

every cloud has its silver lining, and this case is no different: now you can have your own traybon martin gun range targets!

here's an excerpt from the article:

A person selling gun range targets modeled after slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin says that their âEUoemain motivation was to make money off the controversy.âEU

WKMGâEUTMs Mike DeForest reported on Friday that the unidentified seller told him that the targets âEUoesold out in 2 days.âEU

âEUoeThe response is overwhelming,âEU the seller said.

While the item appears to have been removed from GunBroker.com, a cached version of the page was still available at the time of publication.

Photos of the item, which was titled âEUoe10 Pack Trayvon Martin Targets,âEU showed crosshairs over a hoodie similar to the one Trayvon Martin was wearing when he was shot by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in February. The figure has a bag of Skittle in his pocket and is holding what appears to be a can of iced tea, similar to what Martin had purchased before being gunned down. The pack of 10 targets was being sold for $8.

âEUoeEveryone knows the story of Zimmerman and Martin,âEU a description on the targets reads. âEUoeObviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug. Each target is printed on thick, high quality poster paper with a matte finish! The dimensions are 12âEU³x18âEU³ ( The same as Darkotic Zombie Targets) This is a Ten Pack of Targets.âEU

The sellerâEUTMs ID was listed as âEUoehillerarmcoâEU from Virginia Beach, Virginia. A website by the same name is registered to Hiller Armament Company in Virginia Beach, but the associated phone number had been disconnected.

Zimmerman attorney Mark OâEUTMMara told WKMG that this type of âEUoehatredâEU just makes his clientâEUTMs defense even more problematic.

âEUoeThis is the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility,âEU OâEUTMMara said. âEUoeItâEUTMs this type of hatred âEU" thatâEUTMs what this is, itâEUTMs hate-mongering âEU" thatâEUTMs going to make it more difficult to try this case.âEU

âEUoeI hope there is a crime that we can charge that person who made that with,âEU he added. âEUoeIâEUTMm not sure what it is, but we need to come up with one because thatâEUTMs disgusting.âEU

wow, newgrounds does a really good job at fucking up the formatting to the point of making things unreadable when you paste something from websites

At 5/12/12 05:47 PM, Kidradd wrote: every cloud has its silver lining, and this case is no different:

Since when was major douchebaggery a silver lining?

At 5/12/12 05:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/12/12 05:47 PM, Kidradd wrote: every cloud has its silver lining, and this case is no different:

Since when was major douchebaggery a silver lining?

i was being sarcastic :)

Here are the results of Trayvon's autopsy.

At 5/17/12 02:38 PM, Korriken wrote:

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

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

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

At 5/17/12 03:47 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

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

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

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

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