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 01:59:34 PM

Talondel: grimlock1972: Point is Zimmerman disregarded instructions from the police department to not follow the kid, and confronted him and likely said or did something that set the kid off. He brought those injuries on himself and the shooting was not justified.

That is not the law, nor should it be. If you insult me, you are not then required to allow me to beat you within an inch of your life.


Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital after the shooting. He was not beaten to within an inch of his life.
 
2012-05-16 02:02:15 PM

jacetx: 2 grams: CliChe Guevara: 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 ?

I can't tell is this is sarcasm or just stupidity. A crazy person chased him down in a SUV! LOLOL


^ I felt the same way reading your post.
 
2012-05-16 02:06:52 PM

Baryogenesis: Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital after the shooting. He was not beaten to within an inch of his life.


So he was required to wait until he was before responding with deadly force? He continued being assaulted after having suffered a broken nose and wounds to the back of his head and had every right to go for his gun at that point, assuming that's what happened.

I say "assuming" because it's been said that it may of been Trayvon that saw the gun and reached for it first. We've yet to hear Zimmerman's official statement on how it went down.
 
2012-05-16 02:08:38 PM

proteus_b: or that more than 50% of murders are committed by blacks despite the black population being less than 13% of the whole.


Last I looked this was not the actual case; it was less than 50%. Perhaps you know of new data on the topic of this.
 
2012-05-16 02:12:42 PM

meow said the dog: Last I looked this was not the actual case; it was less than 50%. Perhaps you know of new data on the topic of this.


From 1976 - 2005, it's 52.2% Link
 
2012-05-16 02:13:03 PM
I didn't realize that it was a law that you had to listen to the 911 operator. The context of the conversation was probably to protect Zimmerman, not warn him of his rights. You are within your rights to follow a suspected criminal. I'm not taking sides, just stating facts. If Zimmerman is prosecuted and found guilty then I say he deserves it. But the racial undertones on this are blatant and uncalled for.
 
2012-05-16 02:15:01 PM

9beers: meow said the dog: Last I looked this was not the actual case; it was less than 50%. Perhaps you know of new data on the topic of this.

From 1976 - 2005, it's 52.2% Link


Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.
 
2012-05-16 02:15:08 PM

Scerpes: fracto73: Unless Martin felt threatened by an armed man following him first in a car, then on foot. Zimmerman may not have been breaking the law, but that isn't the threshold for Martin to be legally allowed to throw the first punch. He needs to feel his life is in danger. If the prosecution makes this argument then Zimmerman needs to show that Martin's actions were not covered under stand your ground.

No...he really doesn't. The self defense statute has created a situation where both Zimmerman and Martin could conceivably be "standing their ground." Even if Zimmerman was the first aggressor...following...throwing the first punch, he could still be justified in using deadly force so long as he was unable to escape and in fear of great bodily harm at the time he pulled the trigger. Likewise, Martin could have very well been in fear of bodily harm because of the strange guy following him. As a result, he could have used force to defend himself.



I am no lawyer so I could have been wrong. My thought was that the law had an exemption in it so that it didn't apply if someone was defending them selves from you. If you are correct, then someone breaking into a house in florida would be justified shooting the resident of that house if they feared the home owner was going to harm them?
 
2012-05-16 02:15:38 PM
What's that? An older man attacked a teen and suffered injuries when his victim fought back in self defense? THE HORROR!
 
2012-05-16 02:18:30 PM

9beers: Baryogenesis: Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital after the shooting. He was not beaten to within an inch of his life.

So he was required to wait until he was before responding with deadly force? He continued being assaulted after having suffered a broken nose and wounds to the back of his head and had every right to go for his gun at that point, assuming that's what happened.

I say "assuming" because it's been said that it may of been Trayvon that saw the gun and reached for it first. We've yet to hear Zimmerman's official statement on how it went down.


It's funny. You've been accusing other people of jumping to erroneous conclusions by not looking at the evidence, but then you read a very simple post and decide to add all that baggage to it. I did not list a guideline for when to use deadly force against an attacker. I stated two basic facts in contrast to a hyperbolic statement about being beaten to within an inch of his life.

And then you add a bit about Trayvon reaching for the gun even though you have zero evidence for that according to your very next sentence!
 
2012-05-16 02:19:42 PM

Propain_az: 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.


Depends on where you are. I haven't found anything one way or the other for Seminole county, but around here they are.
 
2012-05-16 02:19:53 PM

thelordofcheese: What's that? An older man attacked a teen and suffered injuries when his victim fought back in self defense? THE HORROR!


Actually, the evidence shows that the teen attacked the older man.

It turns out the older man was armed.

So, you know, bang.
 
2012-05-16 02:21:57 PM

meow said the dog: Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.


You could have just admitted you were wrong.
 
2012-05-16 02:26:43 PM

meow said the dog: 9beers: meow said the dog: Last I looked this was not the actual case; it was less than 50%. Perhaps you know of new data on the topic of this.

From 1976 - 2005, it's 52.2% Link

Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.


I remember 1976. It was a wonderful time, full of innocence and hope. Food tasted better. The air smelled fresher. And the slavery, oh boy, the slavery! There was no need to wash your own car or harvest your own agricultural products. You could walk down the street and buy any slave you wanted, and they were cheap, too. It was a magical time.

When they outlawed slavery in 1977, it was a crying shame, really.
 
2012-05-16 02:30:29 PM

jso2897: 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.


It's relevant in that the original narrative was that Zimmerman was 100 lbs heavier and that he towered over Martin. That made it sound like Martin was a victim with zero responsibility for what happened. In fact, the family of Trayvon Martin was pushing that narrative early on, when they *KNEW* Zimmerman was smaller (Zimmerman's height is on the original police report).
 
2012-05-16 02:30:40 PM
If Zimmerman had obeyed the cops, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Funny thing: every time I disobey the cops, bad things happen to me too.
 
2012-05-16 02:31:04 PM

9beers: meow said the dog: Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.

You could have just admitted you were wrong.


2010 Uniform Crime Report disagrees with the wrongness of me:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls
(although the number of unknown could ALL be Black)
 
2012-05-16 02:31:50 PM

Phinn: I remember 1976. It was a wonderful time, full of innocence and hope. Food tasted better. The air smelled fresher. And the slavery, oh boy, the slavery! There was no need to wash your own car or harvest your own agricultural products. You could walk down the street and buy any slave you wanted, and they were cheap, too. It was a magical time.

When they outlawed slavery in 1977, it was a crying shame, really.


Yes I agree with this very much. Thank you for the supporting words.
 
2012-05-16 02:34:18 PM

poot_rootbeer: special20: the guy just needs to get dropped off in Harlem. It could be a huge media event. However, as soon as he's released all the fun would be over in seconds.

Do you think he'd duck into the Starbucks at the corner of MLK Drive and Malcom X Blvd, or would he walk across the street to the other Starbucks?

Your idea of what Harlem is like is about a generation out of date, and also racist.


Excuse me - is your snark detector out of calibration? You're lucky I didn't say n-town, because that would obviously make your head explode.
 
2012-05-16 02:36:50 PM

meow said the dog: (although the number of unknown could ALL be Black)


38.2% black offenders with 28% unknown at this point. Yeah, I'll take the bet any day of the week that it will be 50% or more by the time those crimes are solved.
 
2012-05-16 02:39:37 PM
Here we go again!

Trayvon had every right to stand his ground. He felt someone was following him, or even stalking him. He didn't know this guys intentions. Maybe he felt threatened, maybe so much that he felt his life was in danger. So he stood his ground, as was his right, great!!!

Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, because Trayvon was standing his ground, so now he feels threatened, maybe so much that he felt his life was in danger. So he stood his ground, as was his right, great!!!

If Zimmerman was dead, Trayvon would be defending himself using the stand your ground defense, but i'm not sure if you all noticed, but Trayvon is dead. So he has no defense because, well, he's dead. Saying Trayvon stood his ground means nothing. It does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove Zimmerman's defense. It just makes you sound like some stupid child spouting a catch phrase they don't really understand.

Zimmerman will walk because of the law. I wouldn't pin him as some deviant stalking this child and looking for trouble, but I do think he overstepped his bounds a bit, but not illegally. With the evidence presented thus far, it doesn't look like Zimmerman broke any laws that night. One fact is certain, if Zimmerman backed off, this kid wouldn't be dead, but that does not mean that Zimmerman broke any laws.
 
2012-05-16 02:40:22 PM

ghare: If Zimmerman had obeyed the cops, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Funny thing: every time I disobey the cops, bad things happen to me too.


Who disobeyed the cops? Zimmerman? 911 Operators are NOT POLICEMEN!
 
2012-05-16 02:41:30 PM

ghare: If Zimmerman had obeyed the cops, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Funny thing: every time I disobey the cops, bad things happen to me too.


He didn't disobey the police. 911 operators are not the police, and Zimmerman was not instructed to stop following Trayvon. He was simply told by the 911 operators that they didn't need him to do that. Zimmerman acknowledged that with an 'ok'
 
2012-05-16 02:44:37 PM

cretinbob: [fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 640x480]


I had no idea that Zimmerman left the scene of the struggle to fetch his gun from somewhere else before returning several minutes later to fire the fatal shot. That certainly changes my opinion on the case. Why isn't the media shouting these facts from the rooftops? That was rhetorical btw. They don't because the media are racists.
 
2012-05-16 02:48:07 PM

Baryogenesis: Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital after the shooting. He was not beaten to within an inch of his life.


But that's not the argument being made, so it's not the argument I responded to. The argument being made was (paraphrased) that if you initiate a confrontation, even if you only do so with offensive words, you surrender your right to self defense. ("confronted him and likely said or did something that set the kid off. He brought those injuries on himself and the shooting was not justified."). That's a) wrong and b) dumb.

If you want to argue that Zimmerman did was not reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily harm, that's a different argument. But the fact that he didn't need to go to the hospital immediately after isn't really evidence of that one way or the other. You don't have to wait until your dead or have had serious bodily injury inflicted on you. You have to wait until you are reasonably afraid that will happen. (And you have a duty to make a reasonable effort to withdraw first also, although maybe not in Florida depending on the reading of the SYG law)
 
2012-05-16 02:49:45 PM

dittybopper: jso2897: 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.

It's relevant in that the original narrative was that Zimmerman was 100 lbs heavier and that he towered over Martin. That made it sound like Martin was a victim with zero responsibility for what happened. In fact, the family of Trayvon Martin was pushing that narrative early on, when they *KNEW* Zimmerman was smaller (Zimmerman's height is on the original police report).


By relevant, I didn't mean relevant to the "narrative". I don't consider the narrative relevant. i meant relevant to reality and the law.
 
2012-05-16 02:50:17 PM

jfivealive: Here we go again!

Trayvon had every right to stand his ground. He felt someone was following him, or even stalking him. He didn't know this guys intentions. Maybe he felt threatened, maybe so much that he felt his life was in danger. So he stood his ground, as was his right, great!!!

Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, because Trayvon was standing his ground, so now he feels threatened, maybe so much that he felt his life was in danger. So he stood his ground, as was his right, great!!!

If Zimmerman was dead, Trayvon would be defending himself using the stand your ground defense, but i'm not sure if you all noticed, but Trayvon is dead. So he has no defense because, well, he's dead. Saying Trayvon stood his ground means nothing. It does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove Zimmerman's defense. It just makes you sound like some stupid child spouting a catch phrase they don't really understand.

Zimmerman will walk because of the law. I wouldn't pin him as some deviant stalking this child and looking for trouble, but I do think he overstepped his bounds a bit, but not illegally. With the evidence presented thus far, it doesn't look like Zimmerman broke any laws that night. One fact is certain, if Zimmerman backed off, this kid wouldn't be dead, but that does not mean that Zimmerman broke any laws.



That pretty closely matches my feelings on the issue. Zimmerman probably didn't break the law and probably won't go to jail. Personally I think that he is morally responsible, and the fact that no law was broken reflects poorly on florida's legal system.
 
2012-05-16 02:56:12 PM
It surprises me every time that there are still people who think that one has to obey a 911 call-taker. They had as much authority to order Zimmerman around as tech support.

That in no way means it was intelligent to ignore their obvious, common-sense advice. It was obviously pretty stupid.

My prediction, same as the last dozen iterations of this thread: Zimmerman walks. It's not a matter of SYG...which, as of yet, Zimmerman's people haven't filed for...it's straight "this guy attacked me, I defended myself, prove otherwise." This prediction is subject to change if the prosecution whips out something we don't know about yet, but as it stands, I can't see any way to prove he wasn't defending himself from an assault. There was obviously a confrontation...the dead teenager proves that...but demonstrating that Zimmerman did anything illegal will be difficult.
 
2012-05-16 02:56:50 PM
i163.photobucket.com

Remember to keep it civil in here. We don't need you to be Junior Thread Watch Captains.
 
2012-05-16 02:58:09 PM

ghare: If Zimmerman had obeyed the cops, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?


But Trayvon would have got off Skittle free!
 
2012-05-16 02:58:32 PM

TXEric: [i163.photobucket.com image 300x168]

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


Shirley, you can't be serious.
 
2012-05-16 03:01:08 PM

justtray: Zim's story has never changed, wavered or been questoined and found faulty.


Zim stated during his 911 call that he thought Trayvon was in his late teens.

In Zim's public "apology" (made at Zim's arraignment) to Trayvon's parents - he stated that he'd thought Trayvon was only a bit younger than himself.

Both of these statements were recorded.

Zim "changed" his story to infer he would have acted differently if he'd been aware that Trayvon was a minor.

So YES, he HAS changed his story about that night.
 
2012-05-16 03:02:47 PM
BREAKING NEWS! TRAYVON MARTIN AUTOPSY SHOWS MULTIPLE WOUNDS CONSISTENT WITH PHYSICAL ALTERCATION!

Link

You know, other than the bullet hole.
 
2012-05-16 03:03:16 PM

Facetious_Speciest: It surprises me every time that there are still people who think that one has to obey a 911 call-taker. They had as much authority to order Zimmerman around as tech support.

That in no way means it was intelligent to ignore their obvious, common-sense advice. It was obviously pretty stupid.

My prediction, same as the last dozen iterations of this thread: Zimmerman walks. It's not a matter of SYG...which, as of yet, Zimmerman's people haven't filed for...it's straight "this guy attacked me, I defended myself, prove otherwise." This prediction is subject to change if the prosecution whips out something we don't know about yet, but as it stands, I can't see any way to prove he wasn't defending himself from an assault. There was obviously a confrontation...the dead teenager proves that...but demonstrating that Zimmerman did anything illegal will be difficult.



Self defense is something that the defense needs to prove not something the prosecution needs to disprove.
 
2012-05-16 03:07:29 PM

Phinn: I remember 1976. It was a wonderful time, full of innocence and hope. Food tasted better. The air smelled fresher. And the slavery, oh boy, the slavery! There was no need to wash your own car or harvest your own agricultural products. You could walk down the street and buy any slave you wanted, and they were cheap, too. It was a magical time.

When they outlawed slavery in 1977, it was a crying shame, really.


You went to a Florida public school.... didn't you?
 
2012-05-16 03:09:11 PM

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


Are you a Wizard?
 
2012-05-16 03:09:48 PM

9beers: Culpable negligence


Have you seen Florida's laws on firearm related deaths of someone under the age of majority?
 
2012-05-16 03:12:58 PM

Scerpes: Biv: You are a little off on your info and legalities here.

Zimmerman asked for the ambulance to be called off, not police. Small difference, but important.

Also, whether the dispatcher told him to back of or not is irrelevant. Again, to lay it on the table, I believe his story that he was heading back to his vehicle. But even if he wasn't, he still broke no laws if he continued to pursue. The only way he is guilty is if he threw the first punch. Following doesn't make him guilty, confronting doesn't make him guilty, even yelling racial slurs at his face doesn't make him guilty.

Hell, even if he initiated a physical confrontation, he is guilty of nothing more than assault if it was TM who escalated it to a life threatening situation. (though, admittedly, that's a bit shaky)

But no matter what happened, if TM threw the first punch then it's clear cut self defense and he walks.

You're a little off base on the statute in Florida. Even if Zimmerman was the first aggressor, that is that he threw the first punch, he could still be justified in the use of deadly force:


776.041Use of force by aggressor (new window).-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

* * *

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

* * *

So long as a first aggressor is in fear of great bodily injury and is unable to escape at the moment he pulls the trigger, he's still justified.


The way that is worded it would essentially make the entire state a free for all kill zone.
 
2012-05-16 03:15:31 PM

WorthNoting: justtray: Zim's story has never changed, wavered or been questoined and found faulty.

Zim stated during his 911 call that he thought Trayvon was in his late teens.

In Zim's public "apology" (made at Zim's arraignment) to Trayvon's parents - he stated that he'd thought Trayvon was only a bit younger than himself.

Both of these statements were recorded.

Zim "changed" his story to infer he would have acted differently if he'd been aware that Trayvon was a minor.

So YES, he HAS changed his story about that night.


so after he killed a kid in self defense, he stated that had he known that Martin was a minor, he might have acted differently?

that isn't "changing your story". that is "hindsight is 20/20".
 
2012-05-16 03:17:42 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 is 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.)


1) The gov't isn't your daddy, or nanny. If you see it as such you have a poor understanding of what democratic gov't is. See: Hobbes' Leviathan - there is no freedom in a state of nature other than the right to kill and be killed.

2) I assign no 'authority' to the dispatcher other than the obvious hindsight that their experience was correct in indicating Zim should not pursue a confrontation.

3) And most important and obvious, you criticize the 'Lefty Proggies' for cowering before state authority, while ignoring nearly every challenge to state authority in US (that didn't involve the right to bear arms or pro-theocracy), came from the "Proggie Lefties". See: OWS, anti-war (Nam-Iraq), anti-McCarthyism, civil rights, abolitionists etc etc.
 
2012-05-16 03:17:56 PM

BigBooper: Phinn: I remember 1976. It was a wonderful time, full of innocence and hope. Food tasted better. The air smelled fresher. And the slavery, oh boy, the slavery! There was no need to wash your own car or harvest your own agricultural products. You could walk down the street and buy any slave you wanted, and they were cheap, too. It was a magical time.

When they outlawed slavery in 1977, it was a crying shame, really.

You went to a Florida public school.... didn't you?


You either missed the content of the post he was replying to, a troll, or you're a complete moron.
 
2012-05-16 03:19:36 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Have you seen Florida's laws on firearm related deaths of someone under the age of majority?


I know that some of Florida's laws are applied differently when there's a minor involved. That all goes out the window in this case since the minor involved was violently assaulting somebody.
 
2012-05-16 03:21:01 PM

BigBooper: Phinn: I remember 1976. It was a wonderful time, full of innocence and hope. Food tasted better. The air smelled fresher. And the slavery, oh boy, the slavery! There was no need to wash your own car or harvest your own agricultural products. You could walk down the street and buy any slave you wanted, and they were cheap, too. It was a magical time.

When they outlawed slavery in 1977, it was a crying shame, really.

You went to a Florida public school.... didn't you?


You went to home school in Florida.... didn't you?

Hmmm. I just can't put my finger on what Meow meant by "Trayvon should have been in the home of his master."

home of his master...
his master...
master...

Fark it, I give up. I have no idea what that could be referring to.
 
2012-05-16 03:27:12 PM
fracto73

Self defense is something that the defense needs to prove not something the prosecution needs to disprove.

I know that sounds logical to you, but think about reality for a moment. We know there was a violent confrontation, during which the shooter was injured and supposedly feared for his life. None of the available evidence contradicts this.

I can't really believe a jury is going to unanimously say, "well, there's no way he was defending himself" with the information available. It could happen, but I mark it unlikely.
 
2012-05-16 03:27:15 PM

cretinbob: [fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 640x480]


Just an FYI, BIG difference between those cases. Not the least of which is that she fired the warning shot in the same general vicinity as her own children, lied about it to police, and the biggie... fired the shot(s) after the assault had ended (i.e., no immediate threat to her life at that point in time).

we're not sure how things stood with Martin and Zimmerman at the time of the shooting (i.e., was the fight ongoing, or was there significant distance between the two; based on the one witness, they were still struggling just seconds before the gun was fired), but otherwise nothing is even close between these two stories.

/waiting for more evidence... not making an opinion until then
 
2012-05-16 03:29:27 PM

redmid17: You either missed the content of the post he was replying to, a troll, or you're a complete moron.


Lighten up Francis. It was an attempt at humor.

And it's moran.

/sorry, pet peeve
 
2012-05-16 03:34:02 PM

fracto73:

Self defense is something that the defense needs to prove not something the prosecution needs to disprove.


In theory, no.

In reality, yes. It's much harder to successfully use self defense as a defense in court than most people think, and defendants will usually have to take the tactic that they are guilty until proving their innocence (i.e., at that moment in time, they had no other reasonable option).

When the evidence supports the defendant's claim of events, this is much easier than those times when it can be subjected to multiple interpretations.
 
2012-05-16 03:34:18 PM

BigBooper: redmid17: You either missed the content of the post he was replying to, a troll, or you're a complete moron.

Lighten up Francis. It was an attempt at humor.

And it's moran.

/sorry, pet peeve


okay troll then
 
2012-05-16 03:35:24 PM

Facetious_Speciest: I can't really believe a jury is going to unanimously say, "well, there's no way he was defending himself" with the information available. It could happen, but I mark it unlikely.


Under Florida's SYG law, the judge may throw out the case before it even goes to trial. The prosecution has to prove that the situation was not a situation of self defense.

meathome: we're not sure how things stood with Martin and Zimmerman at the time of the shooting (i.e., was the fight ongoing, or was there significant distance between the two; based on the one witness, they were still struggling just seconds before the gun was fired),


Information that came out at the bond hearing indicates that the shot was fired at point blank range.
 
2012-05-16 03:37:32 PM

Facetious_Speciest: fracto73

Self defense is something that the defense needs to prove not something the prosecution needs to disprove.

I know that sounds logical to you, but think about reality for a moment. We know there was a violent confrontation, during which the shooter was injured and supposedly feared for his life. None of the available evidence contradicts this.

I can't really believe a jury is going to unanimously say, "well, there's no way he was defending himself" with the information available. It could happen, but I mark it unlikely.



My statement isn't about a jury. It is about using self defense as justification for his actions. He must show that it was justified and the burden is on the defense. I've already said I don't think he is legally guilty. The statement that I was responding to just had the burden of proof backwards.
 
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