If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Not that it will change the opinion of a single person one way or the other, but the prosecution's own records show the Zimmerman had two black eyes, a broken nose, and two cuts on the back of his head the night Trayvon Martin was shot   (azcentral.com) divider line 794
    More: Followup, family practices, broken nose, medical records  
•       •       •

6479 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2012 at 9:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



794 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-16 12:11:33 PM

Snarfangel: It is dark here. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.



did you try?

> open skittles

How do you intend to do that?

> open bag

(of skittles) You tear open the sack of skittles. The corpulent hispanic stares intently at the bag of skittles.

> pour skittles onto ground

The man shrieks in terror as the precious skittles bounce all over the pavement. He dives toward you to
begin collecting the colorful delights. He rapidly consumes them.

> hit man with bottle

You raise the bottle of iced-tea far above your head and smash it down upon the head of the
skittle-devouring monster. The beast is dazed; the bottle is broken into a thousand pieces.

> run S

You take advantage of the confusion to run down the street. You arrive in front of Shaniqua's house, but
can hear the shouts of the skittle-man in the distance.

> open door

The door is locked.

> knock on door

As you pound on the door, you can hear the man approaching, and cocking a gun. He shouts something
which you are unable to make out. Finally Shaniqua opens the door and your eyes meet.

> enter house

As you enter the house you hear the blast of a gun, as the madman has begun shooting up the street.

> close door

You close the door; finally you are safe---but you don't have the skittles.
 
2012-05-16 12:12:58 PM

dittybopper: Joe Peanut: dittybopper: Yeah, if Occam still believed that 6'3" Trayvon Martin was much smaller than 5'9" George Zimmerman. Which would make Occam the laughingstock of this thread.

Height doesn't enter into this. Why are all combat sports such as MMA, Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, etc divided into weight classes rather than height? Martin was 150lbs and Zimmermann is 185 lbs. That's what counts in a fight.

The extra reach and leverage afforded by being taller gives you an advantage over someone the same weight (or roughly so). Also, not all weight is the same: A lean athlete is going to have an advantage over heavier non-athlete, even a much heavier one.


I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway, in the context of a street fight. A friend of mine who was going through the LAPD academy once told me that his colleagues informed him that the average street or bar fight lasts 25 seconds - and it is not an athletic test of strength or skill.
And that has certainly been my experience.
 
2012-05-16 12:15:10 PM

dittybopper: SweetSilverBlues: dittybopper: SweetSilverBlues: dittybopper: redmid17: Propain_az: Amos Quito: Trayvon black, Zimmerman white.

Trayvon dead, Zimmerman alive, therefor Zimmerman is guilty, guilty, guilty.

Why complicate things with facts and details?

Zimmer is white? I think he is of Latino origin.

His dad is white. His mom is Peruvian with some African ancestors.

His fine-looking suit is really made out of sack.

And has created quite a conundrum.

Also, I hear that the north side of Zimmerman's home town faced east, and the east was facing south.

And his lawn is filled with slatted folding chairs.

I am very sorry for his lots.

He looks pretty tall, but his heels are high.


Along with his robes and wizard's hat.
 
2012-05-16 12:15:13 PM

SweetSilverBlues: the_foo: liam76: Under Fla stand your ground they have no farking case. He we will walk.

But him being injured still doesn't answer the question of who attacked who first.

Despite the media outrage, SYG isn't an unlimited license to kill. It requires reasonable fear, and Black In Public isn't going to satisfy that standard. Pursuing someone is also very different than standing your ground.

That's the crux of the issue.

According to Florida law it does not matter who threw the first punch.

What matters is whether or not Zimmerman was legitamately in fear for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled the trigger.

The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.


That's how it's being presented, but that's fundamentally untrue. You can't exercise those kind of rights during the course of the commission of a crime, and he was illegally assaulting and detaining Martin. The automatic murder charges should stand as this is a manslaughter during the commission of a premeditated illegal detainment. He started the conflict which gave Martin the right to defend; he brandished a weapon, which gave Martin the right to use deadly force against him. Verbal assaults with threats to detain with physical violence and a weapon took away any rights he's trying to claim. It's the same legal basis for pinning murder charges on the get away driver in a bank robbery.
 
2012-05-16 12:16:03 PM

SweetSilverBlues: The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.


Lets assume that Zimmerman did catch back up to Martin and grabbed him by the arm, asking him what he was doing. Does that mean that Zimmerman is obligated to lay there, taking a beating, without defending himself? Sure, Zimmerman would have been the aggressor and in the wrong but that doesn't mean he forfeits his right to defend himself if Martin responds with a level of force that makes him fearful of great bodily harm or death.
 
2012-05-16 12:16:13 PM
Someone help me out here, I haven't been on top of this case so I might have missed something.

The video of Zimmerman at the police station being taken out of the back of the car, frisked, etc shows no blood on his clothes. I'm no Dexter Morgan but it seems that if you shoot someone who is on top of you point blank in the chest then you're probably going to be covered in blood. So, Zimmerman must not have shot his gun while Trayvon was on top of him, well, unless that hoodie was made of shamwows.
 
2012-05-16 12:18:02 PM
Good. If it had been me that was being followed in the dark by Zimmerman, he'd have ended up with a much worse set of problems.
 
2012-05-16 12:18:17 PM

nekom: certainly an act imminently dangerous to another


Crimes are considered imminently dangerous. For example, if a police officer tells you to leave someone alone, and you verbally assault them and threaten them with violence, you are automatically considered to be responsible for all the resulting actions, because you were illegally detaining and threatening someone. Unless, apparently, the kid is black and this one time he smoked weed, and then this other time he punched someone.
 
2012-05-16 12:20:05 PM

abhorrent1: Because black people never kill unarmed teens minding their own business.

Oh wait, yes they do.
[www.trbimg.com image 400x225]


What an insightful point you have made. You have clearly demonstrated why it is ok to kill unarmed black teens. Thank you for that wisdom.
 
2012-05-16 12:20:11 PM

mitEj: So you mean the young teenage boy may have defended himself when a crazy person chased him down in a SUV in the middle of the night and then chased him into the grass way between houses as he tried to get home to his stepmothers house. What would have done submitter ?

The entire point is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and killed the teen boy. If the young man fought back that was his right under the statute that Zimmerman erroneously used to get away with murder.


Why didn't the thread end after that post?

/thread
 
2012-05-16 12:20:30 PM
You can tell who is a Republican in this thread, assholes stick together.
 
2012-05-16 12:20:37 PM

SweetSilverBlues: trappedspirit: SweetSilverBlues: Not confirmed and you know it.

So we should probably go with presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Guilty of what? Following Martin? Not illegal, just irresponsible if proven.

My interpretation of what's been presented is Zimmerman did follow Martin, but that's my interpretation.

Just like you're presuming Martin "guilty" of following Zimmerman back to his vehicle. That is your interpretation of what's been presented. Equally irresponsible but not illegal.

Both are irrelevant. The prosecution has already lost the case by going with Murder 2.


Without knowing all of the facts - and without seeing both legal theories - I think it's a stretch to say the prosecutor couldn't win a murder 2 case.

In order for someone to be convicted of murder 2 - the prosecution has to prove one of the following:

1). "The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . ." Link

2). (3)When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a)Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b)Arson,
(c)Sexual battery,
(d)Robbery,
(e)Burglary,
(f)Kidnapping,
(g)Escape,
(h)Aggravated child abuse,
(i)Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j)Aircraft piracy,
(k)Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l)Carjacking,
(m)Home-invasion robbery,
(n)Aggravated stalking,
(o)Murder of another human being,
(p)Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q)Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree
 
2012-05-16 12:21:11 PM

Propain_az: cretinbob: Propain_az: He isn't required to listen to advice.

It's called "pre-arrival instructions" , and while you don't have to , you should.


Has anyone else mentioned "hearsay is inadmissible" yet?

"you should" isn't a legal standard.


When it comes from a peace officer (cop), ummmm...yeah, pretty much. 911 dispatchers aren't like McDonalds employees.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:11 PM

9beers: SweetSilverBlues: The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.

Lets assume that Zimmerman did catch back up to Martin and grabbed him by the arm, asking him what he was doing. Does that mean that Zimmerman is obligated to lay there, taking a beating, without defending himself? Sure, Zimmerman would have been the aggressor and in the wrong but that doesn't mean he forfeits his right to defend himself if Martin responds with a level of force that makes him fearful of great bodily harm or death.


No, he's obligated to retreat before committing a crime by assault, and then battery and illegal detainment. He's legally responsible for the fact those crimes even occurred in the first place, and liable for them. Even if you accept a self defense plea to prevent murder 1; he's directly responsible for a death during an illegal act. At best Martin responding with a level of force should be a mitigating factor in his sentencing.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:19 PM

Mr Guy: nekom: certainly an act imminently dangerous to another

Crimes are considered imminently dangerous. For example, if a police officer tells you to leave someone alone, and you verbally assault them and threaten them with violence, you are automatically considered to be responsible for all the resulting actions, because you were illegally detaining and threatening someone. Unless, apparently, the kid is black and this one time he smoked weed, and then this other time he punched someone.


Right, and honestly had it been Martin with the gun killing Zimmerman after being physically attacked, I wouldn't vote to convict him of murder either. Depending on the facts (many of which we still don't know), either one of them may well have been within their legal right to defend themselves.

If it's like the statute in most states, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if a reasonable person in your situation would have felt that they or someone else were in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. That could have been true for either one of them.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:20 PM

Phinn: Serious Post on Serious Thread: You are projecting some very convoluted idea that authoritarianism ... is somehow the same as society.

This makes no sense.

What I'm saying is that it seems like there's a one-to-one correlation between people being Leftie Proggie douche and believing that disregarding the stray comments of police dispatchers is tantamount to being an outlaw.

The two mindsets arise from the same pathology -- the state is almighty, the state is good, the state isI here to help you, the state is your protector, the state is the source of all our freedoms, the state is benevolent.

It really doesn't matter what some government employee on the other end of the phone thought or said. Zimmerman had the right to go anywhere and investigate anything he wanted to. As long as he didn't pose a threat of death or serious injury to someone, he had the right not to be hit as he was doing so.

We're not children, and the government is not daddy. The Proggie view of government is obviously a manifestation of some serious problems with their childhoods.

(So, too, the right-wing authoritarian view of government, if that matters to you.)


I agree and believe that the "Zimmerman should have done what the dispatcher told him to do" strikes a cord with many people including myself. The comments of a dispatcher are not law. I resent mcuh of the goverment do what you are told attitude that seems to have become very prevelent in the past few years.
 
2012-05-16 12:21:54 PM

umad: God damn these threads are boring and repetitive. At least there will be some epic shiatstorms to look forward to after the coming acquittal. Now those threads will be some fun.


They sure will be but I'm not looking forward to the rioting that's sure to follow
 
2012-05-16 12:22:14 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-05-16 12:22:20 PM

Mr Guy: SweetSilverBlues: the_foo: liam76: Under Fla stand your ground they have no farking case. He we will walk.

But him being injured still doesn't answer the question of who attacked who first.

Despite the media outrage, SYG isn't an unlimited license to kill. It requires reasonable fear, and Black In Public isn't going to satisfy that standard. Pursuing someone is also very different than standing your ground.

That's the crux of the issue.

According to Florida law it does not matter who threw the first punch.

What matters is whether or not Zimmerman was legitamately in fear for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled the trigger.

The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.

That's how it's being presented, but that's fundamentally untrue. You can't exercise those kind of rights during the course of the commission of a crime, and he was illegally assaulting and detaining Martin. The automatic murder charges should stand as this is a manslaughter during the commission of a premeditated illegal detainment. He started the conflict which gave Martin the right to defend; he brandished a weapon, which gave Martin the right to use deadly force against him. Verbal assaults with threats to detain with physical violence and a weapon took away any rights he's trying to claim. It's the same legal basis for pinning murder charges on the get away driver in a bank robbery.


That's an interesting argument - but the problem I have is accepting the premise that Zimmerman was initially acting with intent that was malicious, or that he understood or believed to be unlawful. In this case I think the DA better served justice by seeking charges that do not hinge upon something that probably can't be established.
 
2012-05-16 12:22:24 PM

frepnog: i seriously doubt that a 6foot 3inch 175 pound teenager was "terrified" of anyone, much less a Mexican talking to the cops. If there was ANY fear in Treyvon's heart that night it was of being detained by cops.


Yeah, because he knew Zimmerman was talking to the police in his truck, right?

If Martin was afraid of being detained by the police (and why would he be? he was walking back from a convenience store, doesn't seem to have had any warrants, and wasn't found with anything compromising on his body), why would he, as Zimmerman claims, turn around and come back? Bullshiat.

That said, you ever thought you were being followed on an empty street? I'm 6'5" and 230. It's not that big of a comfort, because in that moment, you believe it's intentional, that you've been singled out, and that the person following you believes they're adequately prepared to do you some harm. If Martin was half the dangerous thug you suggest, he would have been very aware of that.

Zimmerman made it clear on his 911 call that he was following Martin in his truck, and when Martin ran, you can hear Zimmerman get out. I and my father both worked nights for years. We had redneck meth addicts doing that crap all the time, cruising around in pickup trucks for somebody to beat or rob for laughs, and it was scary as shiat.

There's a right way to approach people if you think you have some legitimate business with them and a wrong way that's asking for unneccessary trouble. Everything about Zimmerman's conduct was the wrong way, and even if Martin lost his mind, came back and attacked Zimmerman (in which case, I'm all in favor of Zimmerman going home), I still have little sympathy for the remarkable stupidity of his actions. A teenager is dead because he wanted to play cops and robbers.

Zimmerman is a contemptible idiot who lacked the judgment to know sound advice when the dispatcher gave it to him.

As far as who has a history of what - Treyvon has a history of being found with stolen merchandise and implements used in breaking and entering and also of striking someone that wouldn't give him his way. Hmm.

The "implements used in breaking and entering" were a screwdriver, the "stolen merchandise" was never tied to any crime, and the only reference I can find to Martin "striking" anyone is based on a third party's tweet about a rumor he heard. He was also caught spraypainting "WTF" on the side of the school, and may have enjoyed marijuana, which would suggest that he probably had a Fark account.

I would never suggest that Martin was some shining example of America's youth. However, he isn't the one who was cruising around with a loaded gun, creeping out strangers and accusing them of crimes. If there were any real reason to believe that he was the one who challenged Zimmerman, I'd give serious consideration to his character in forming an opinion about what I suspect likely happened. However, that scenario just doesn't make as much sense to me as one in which Zimmerman challenged Martin.

ScouserDuck: freewill: Unless there's real evidence that he had walked away and that Martin pursued him (and, other than his claim, which is contradicted by Martin's girlfriend, there isn't), I would think manslaughter is the most generous possible interpretation.

That's not how burden of proof works.


Correct me if I'm wrong, maybe Florida is different, but I'm given to understand that that's exactly how an affirmitive defense works.
 
2012-05-16 12:24:02 PM

Propain_az: The My Little Pony Killer: Not that Subby is really paying attention, but this report was done by his family doctor (biased much?) and we already have video proof that his eyes were not black the night of the shooting.

Somebody's mad scramble is starting to fall apart.

I doubt that his "family" doctor would risk his career to lie for Señor Zimmerman.


Oh, you haven't been paying attention to his lawyers, I see.
 
2012-05-16 12:24:40 PM

2 grams: I agree and believe that the "Zimmerman should have done what the dispatcher told him to do" strikes a cord with many people including myself. The comments of a dispatcher are not law. I resent mcuh of the goverment do what you are told attitude that seems to have become very prevelent in the past few years.


No, but it strips him of any claim that he didn't know his actions were likely to be illegal. The dispatcher TOLD him he was pursuing him at his own risk, and he still chose to initiate the conflict, initiate an illegal detention, and verbally assault someone while carrying a loaded weapon. His desire to be a hero directly conflicted with Martin's legal rights, and Zimmerman chose being a hero over any acceptable legal action, and Martin is dead because of it.
 
2012-05-16 12:25:32 PM

9beers: SweetSilverBlues: The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.

Lets assume that Zimmerman did catch back up to Martin and grabbed him by the arm, asking him what he was doing. Does that mean that Zimmerman is obligated to lay there, taking a beating, without defending himself? Sure, Zimmerman would have been the aggressor and in the wrong but that doesn't mean he forfeits his right to defend himself if Martin responds with a level of force that makes him fearful of great bodily harm or death.


So you're heading back to your house having committed no crime, and someone runs up to you, lets say a teenage black kid in a hoodie at midnight and demands to know where you are going and why. Your immediate response is...

/Difficulty: Don't lie.
 
2012-05-16 12:25:52 PM

Propain_az: The My Little Pony Killer: Biv: Moosecakes: I don't care if he had a broken leg he put himself in that position and unnecessarily caused the death of someone else, and the entire thing could have been avoided by just following police instructions.

Again, you don't know that he didn't. There has been no evidence released that he did anything but head back to his vehicle.

Which he wouldn't have left in the first place had he listened to the advice given to him by the people he called for help...

He isn't required to listen to advice.


Then why make the call in the first place?
 
2012-05-16 12:27:13 PM
That's it! I'm tired of this shiat! I'm calling the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He'll get this matter sorted out and then explain it to us in a way that even a four year old can understand.
 
2012-05-16 12:27:15 PM

Serious Black: I'm sure that George Zimmerman was merely trying to have a playful shoving match with Trayvon Martin. I mean, it's not like holding a gun makes you think situations are more dangerous than they really are.


If you're going to bother to quote and respond to one of my posts, you could at least bother reading the rest of my posts to see if the point you're attempting to make has already been addressed. Hint: It has.

CliChe Guevara: Why didn't the thread end after that post?


Because it's legally wrong.

manimal2878: I don't think your interpretation of the law is entirely correct. The first aggressor can defend themselves, but it brings back the duty to try and retreat before using that deadly force.


Correct, but only if it's reasonable to do so. All facts suggest that in this case by the time Zimmerman would have been in a situation where he felt threatened he was no longer in a position to retreat. That is, if Zimmerman's version of events is correct and Martin was on top of him beating him and banging his head into the ground, there's not a reasonable opportunity to retreat there.
 
2012-05-16 12:27:24 PM

9beers: SweetSilverBlues: The events leading up to it, under Florida law, are entirely irrelevant.

And that's ridiculous.

Lets assume that Zimmerman did catch back up to Martin and grabbed him by the arm, asking him what he was doing. Does that mean that Zimmerman is obligated to lay there, taking a beating, without defending himself? Sure, Zimmerman would have been the aggressor and in the wrong but that doesn't mean he forfeits his right to defend himself if Martin responds with a level of force that makes him fearful of great bodily harm or death.


What I think Zimmerman is, again with my interpretation, is guilty of using the color of authority to instigate and provoke a situation due to his irresponsibility and ego.

He put himself and Martin in the situation. A situation that was fully within his power to prevent based on the immediate choices he made.

That makes him ultimately responsible for the outcome. Not depraved disregard for human life, just an idiot who's actions led to the death of someone else at his hand.

That's manslaughter.
 
2012-05-16 12:27:47 PM

dittybopper: Joe Peanut: dittybopper: Yeah, if Occam still believed that 6'3" Trayvon Martin was much smaller than 5'9" George Zimmerman. Which would make Occam the laughingstock of this thread.

Height doesn't enter into this. Why are all combat sports such as MMA, Boxing, Wrestling, Judo, etc divided into weight classes rather than height? Martin was 150lbs and Zimmermann is 185 lbs. That's what counts in a fight.

The extra reach and leverage afforded by being taller gives you an advantage over someone the same weight (or roughly so). Also, not all weight is the same: A lean athlete is going to have an advantage over heavier non-athlete, even a much heavier one.


This is how it works in video games, yes.
 
2012-05-16 12:27:51 PM

jso2897: That's an interesting argument - but the problem I have is accepting the premise that Zimmerman was initially acting with intent that was malicious, or that he understood or believed to be unlawful. In this case I think the DA better served justice by seeking charges that do not hinge upon something that probably can't be established.


That's where the police advisement to cease and desist becomes so critical. This is a rare case where a police dispatched flat out told him not to do it, and then someone ended up dead. His INTENTION was to incorrectly apply a citizens arrest, on the record. There's absolutely no scenario he can concoct that could vindicate him, unless his claim is he broke off pursuit, went somewhere else entirely, and Martin was there waiting for him and initiated a conflict. The second he jumped out of his car shouting at Martin, particularly in possession of a firearm, he was committing a crime the dispatcher had JUST WARNED HIM NOT TO DO.
 
2012-05-16 12:28:44 PM

Mr Guy: No, he's obligated to retreat


How do you retreat when somebody is on top of you, whipping your ass? He's obligated to use every reasonable means to escape, that's it.

It's very easy to see why the law is written the way it is. A person doesn't have the right to beat you to death just because you grab their arm or shove them.
 
2012-05-16 12:29:56 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh, you haven't been paying attention to his lawyers, I see.


You mean the lawyer that said "I'll do this Pro Bono because you have no money" and then found out he could basically steal the web site Zimmerman set up so he could profit?
 
2012-05-16 12:30:09 PM

abhorrent1: Because black people never kill unarmed teens minding their own business.

Oh wait, yes they do.
[www.trbimg.com image 400x225]


I can't tell if this genius non-sequitur absurdist comedy or being a dick!
 
2012-05-16 12:30:39 PM

2 grams: Phinn: Serious Post on Serious Thread: You are projecting some very convoluted idea that authoritarianism ... is somehow the same as society.

This makes no sense.

What I'm saying is that it seems like there's a one-to-one correlation between people being Leftie Proggie douche and believing that disregarding the stray comments of police dispatchers is tantamount to being an outlaw.

The two mindsets arise from the same pathology -- the state is almighty, the state is good, the state isI here to help you, the state is your protector, the state is the source of all our freedoms, the state is benevolent.

It really doesn't matter what some government employee on the other end of the phone thought or said. Zimmerman had the right to go anywhere and investigate anything he wanted to. As long as he didn't pose a threat of death or serious injury to someone, he had the right not to be hit as he was doing so.

We're not children, and the government is not daddy. The Proggie view of government is obviously a manifestation of some serious problems with their childhoods.

(So, too, the right-wing authoritarian view of government, if that matters to you.)

I agree and believe that the "Zimmerman should have done what the dispatcher told him to do" strikes a cord with many people including myself. The comments of a dispatcher are not law. I resent mcuh of the goverment do what you are told attitude that seems to have become very prevelent in the past few years.


Yet you seem to miss that most of the people who think that Zimmerman was right in ignoring the very people he called for help when they offered such advice to him also think that Martin should have kept his head down and gone straight home. Like an obedient little boy.
 
2012-05-16 12:31:13 PM

Baryogenesis: Someone help me out here, I haven't been on top of this case so I might have missed something.

The video of Zimmerman at the police station being taken out of the back of the car, frisked, etc shows no blood on his clothes. I'm no Dexter Morgan but it seems that if you shoot someone who is on top of you point blank in the chest then you're probably going to be covered in blood. So, Zimmerman must not have shot his gun while Trayvon was on top of him, well, unless that hoodie was made of shamwows.


And another thing someone might be able to help me with

If I was just beaten with such force that I thought my life was threatened then why would I decline to go to the hospital? I could have fractured facial bones, a concussion, internal bleeding, etc, etc. It might not have turned out that way, but I would at least want to be checked on immediately. I was just so scared for my life that I killed someone, but now I'm ok, I'll just go to my normal doctor tomorrow...huh?
 
2012-05-16 12:31:33 PM

Mr Guy: jso2897: That's an interesting argument - but the problem I have is accepting the premise that Zimmerman was initially acting with intent that was malicious, or that he understood or believed to be unlawful. In this case I think the DA better served justice by seeking charges that do not hinge upon something that probably can't be established.

That's where the police advisement to cease and desist becomes so critical. This is a rare case where a police dispatched flat out told him not to do it, and then someone ended up dead. His INTENTION was to incorrectly apply a citizens arrest, on the record. There's absolutely no scenario he can concoct that could vindicate him, unless his claim is he broke off pursuit, went somewhere else entirely, and Martin was there waiting for him and initiated a conflict. The second he jumped out of his car shouting at Martin, particularly in possession of a firearm, he was committing a crime the dispatcher had JUST WARNED HIM NOT TO DO.


Saying is one thing - proving it another. I will admit that I have a personal prejudice in favor of prosecutors being conservative in the charges that they bring - it seems to work out better in the long run - the Casey Anthoney case is an extreme example of what can happen otherwise.
 
2012-05-16 12:32:22 PM
The media coverage of this has been a complete and total clusterfark, and this whole thread (both sides) only has that info to go on.
 
2012-05-16 12:32:45 PM

cretinbob: The My Little Pony Killer: Oh, you haven't been paying attention to his lawyers, I see.

You mean the lawyer that said "I'll do this Pro Bono because you have no money" and then found out he could basically steal the web site Zimmerman set up so he could profit?


Yeah. Kinda shows that the people working with Zimmerman have no problem picking and choosing the laws that work for them.
 
2012-05-16 12:33:01 PM

the_foo: liam76: Under Fla stand your ground they have no farking case. He we will walk.

But him being injured still doesn't answer the question of who attacked who first.

Despite the media outrage, SYG isn't an unlimited license to kill. It requires reasonable fear, and Black In Public isn't going to satisfy that standard. Pursuing someone is also very different than standing your ground.


Black in public would not. Being severely beaten would. According to Zimmerman, both of those were in play. There have been multiple cases where someone pursued another and killed them only to have SYG apply and let free. Here is one: Link. That's a pretty egregious case right there.

There was another case where a guy saw people speeding through his neighborhood when kids were around. He got on his bike after he grabbed his gun, rode after the car, and started yelling at the driver. The driver's drunk friend knocked him over and started punching him while straddling him. The guy shot him in the chest. If Zimmerman's account is true, this is a fairly similar situation.
 
2012-05-16 12:33:58 PM

9beers: Mr Guy: No, he's obligated to retreat

How do you retreat when somebody is on top of you, whipping your ass? He's obligated to use every reasonable means to escape, that's it.

It's very easy to see why the law is written the way it is. A person doesn't have the right to beat you to death just because you grab their arm or shove them.


Actually, they do, if you tell them they are detaining you and if you try and leave, you'll shoot them. If I know you're armed, and you start a conflict with me, I have the legal right to put you down, because it's legally valid for me to assume you wouldn't start that conflict with me if you weren't willing to use the weapon I know you to have. The second degree murder law trumps his right to self defense because Martin had the right to respond with deadly force, due to the crimes already in progress against him. The law doesn't give you the right to escalate to win an illegal fight.
 
2012-05-16 12:34:00 PM

SweetSilverBlues: What I think Zimmerman is, again with my interpretation, is guilty of using the color of authority to instigate and provoke a situation due to his irresponsibility and ego.

He put himself and Martin in the situation. A situation that was fully within his power to prevent based on the immediate choices he made.

That makes him ultimately responsible for the outcome. Not depraved disregard for human life, just an idiot who's actions led to the death of someone else at his hand.

That's manslaughter.



For manslaughter to apply, there has to be some sort of culpable negligence on Zimmerman's part. The definition of culpable negligence is: Culpable negligence means recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death.

Nothing Zimmerman did falls into those categories.
 
2012-05-16 12:34:05 PM
But isn't it nice to have this case go to court so evidence like this can be presented? Or, are you against justice?
 
2012-05-16 12:34:29 PM

Moderator: Remember to keep it civil in here. We don't need you to be Junior Thread Watch Captains.


WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME???
 
2012-05-16 12:35:07 PM

Mr Guy: ... he was committing a crime the dispatcher had JUST WARNED HIM NOT TO DO.


What is the name of that crime? (A citation to that crime in the Florida code would be great too!)
 
2012-05-16 12:35:51 PM

cretinbob: Propain_az: cretinbob: Propain_az: He isn't required to listen to advice.

It's called "pre-arrival instructions" , and while you don't have to , you should.


Has anyone else mentioned "hearsay is inadmissible" yet?

"you should" isn't a legal standard.

When it comes from a peace officer (cop), ummmm...yeah, pretty much. 911 dispatchers aren't like McDonalds employees.


A 911 Operator is not a peace officer (cop). I agree that they aren't like McDonald's employees.
 
2012-05-16 12:36:06 PM

9beers: It's very easy to see why the law is written the way it is


Apparently not. The evidence is all over this thread.
 
2012-05-16 12:37:44 PM

redmid17: the_foo: liam76: Under Fla stand your ground they have no farking case. He we will walk.

But him being injured still doesn't answer the question of who attacked who first.

Despite the media outrage, SYG isn't an unlimited license to kill. It requires reasonable fear, and Black In Public isn't going to satisfy that standard. Pursuing someone is also very different than standing your ground.

Black in public would not. Being severely beaten would. According to Zimmerman, both of those were in play. There have been multiple cases where someone pursued another and killed them only to have SYG apply and let free. Here is one: Link. That's a pretty egregious case right there.

There was another case where a guy saw people speeding through his neighborhood when kids were around. He got on his bike after he grabbed his gun, rode after the car, and started yelling at the driver. The driver's drunk friend knocked him over and started punching him while straddling him. The guy shot him in the chest. If Zimmerman's account is true, this is a fairly similar situation.


This is what I have suspected would happen with Florida's SYG law. The "wrong" people are going to start taking advantage of it - already, Scott has put together a commission to re-examine the law.
 
2012-05-16 12:37:50 PM

Mr Guy: That's where the police advisement to cease and desist becomes so critical. This is a rare case where a police dispatched flat out told him not to do it, and then someone ended up dead. His INTENTION was to incorrectly apply a citizens arrest, on the record. There's absolutely no scenario he can concoct that could vindicate him, unless his claim is he broke off pursuit, went somewhere else entirely, and Martin was there waiting for him and initiated a conflict. The second he jumped out of his car shouting at Martin, particularly in possession of a firearm, he was committing a crime the dispatcher had JUST WARNED HIM NOT TO DO.


You're wrong about what took place. Zimmerman exited his vehicle and began running before the dispatcher suggested that he need not follow Martin. Once the dispatcher makes the suggestion, Zimmerman says "OK" and stops running.

You should take some time to learn the facts of the case before forming an opinion.
 
2012-05-16 12:37:50 PM

Bontesla: SweetSilverBlues: trappedspirit: SweetSilverBlues: Not confirmed and you know it.

So we should probably go with presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Guilty of what? Following Martin? Not illegal, just irresponsible if proven.

My interpretation of what's been presented is Zimmerman did follow Martin, but that's my interpretation.

Just like you're presuming Martin "guilty" of following Zimmerman back to his vehicle. That is your interpretation of what's been presented. Equally irresponsible but not illegal.

Both are irrelevant. The prosecution has already lost the case by going with Murder 2.

Without knowing all of the facts - and without seeing both legal theories - I think it's a stretch to say the prosecutor couldn't win a murder 2 case.

In order for someone to be convicted of murder 2 - the prosecution has to prove one of the following:

1). "The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . ." Link

2). (3)When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a)Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b)Arson,
(c)Sexual battery,
(d)Robbery,
(e)Burglary,
(f)Kidnapping,
(g)Escape,
(h)Aggravated child abuse,
(i)Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j)Aircraft piracy,
(k)Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l)Carjacking,
(m)Home-invasion robbery,
(n)Aggravated stalking,
(o)Murder of another human being,
(p)Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q)Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree


It still doesn't pass muster with me, because I don't think that the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was committing an imminently dangerous act, evincing a depraved mind, or was engaged in anything other than being a power-tripping dickwad who was going to throw his weight around a little and show this punk kid who was boss.

I honestly don't think physical altercation or shooting was on Zimmerman's mind when he started the chain of events.

The prosecution will have to do some interesting legal acrobatics to prove aggravated stalking or anything else in that list.
 
2012-05-16 12:39:04 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Propain_az: The My Little Pony Killer: Biv: Moosecakes: I don't care if he had a broken leg he put himself in that position and unnecessarily caused the death of someone else, and the entire thing could have been avoided by just following police instructions.

Again, you don't know that he didn't. There has been no evidence released that he did anything but head back to his vehicle.

Which he wouldn't have left in the first place had he listened to the advice given to him by the people he called for help...

He isn't required to listen to advice.

Then why make the call in the first place?


Are you kidding? You make the call to alert the po-po. Not to solicit advice from them.
 
2012-05-16 12:40:32 PM

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: But isn't it nice to have this case go to court so evidence like this can be presented? Or, are you against justice?


What evidence? The only criminal thing about this entire case is that Angela Corey abused her position and filed charges without any evidence of a crime. Hopefully there's some way to hold her accountable after this is all over.
 
Displayed 50 of 794 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report