Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[Bubblehead1980]

As has been pointed out, you have never been in a debate which means you have always backed away from any debate.


:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Bubbles you poor deluded young man, your attempt at a response didn't even address it, so how you can think you showed anything of value(beyond comedy value) is almost beyond belief.:doh:
But hey as you are trying to play silly buggers mr. "lawyer" how about you enter a debate for a change.
Lets start with one of a few of the completely silly "legal" claims you have made and refused to respond to when they are shot to pieces.:know:

Can you start with the succesful and unsuccesful prosecutions in Florida which you claimed as a local and a local legal expert can never have taken place at all?:woot:


You posted this : Just a question, how does on get tackled to the ground whilst getting punched and simultaneously call 911 and shoot the offender? God did it?

Quote:

I responded by clarifying that he was not on the phone at the time of the shooting, it occured after Zimmerman was off the phone and Trayvon attacked him.A 911 call made by a witness who saw Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is when the screams and the gun shot were heard.This is a witness corroborated version of events which disproves your ridiculous assertion that he was on the phone while being attacked and when he shot Trayvon.

Not sure why I respond to you other than eventually, maybe you will be able actually debate an issue in lieu of insulting me.I have thick skin but it is downright insulting for you to say the things you do about me without any provocation other than we hold vastly different views on life and the world.The nasty, spiteful liberal is what you here, instead of offering rebuttle or attempting you, you just berate me.I await your response on the issue at hand, but pretty sure I will be waiting for a long, long time.

[Bubblehead1980]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17542979

I guess they didn't like him wearing a hoodie and shades either....:D


Stupid stunt, Rush had no business distracting from the business of the house over a STATE issue. Idiots like Bobby Rush are a big part of the problem.

[eddie]

Way to go Spike Lee! This jackass goes on to his twitter account to give out Zimmermans address. The problem with that is, its the wrong address. Now a 70 year old couple has to hide out in a hotel!!

Spike Lee gets the "Dumb A##" of the year award!:x

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10902897-couple-lives-in-fear-after-their-address-tweeted-as-george-zimmermans

[Platapus]

And I fear there is no crime that Spike can be charged with either. Just a dumb act that results in innocent old people being terrorized. :nope:

[RickC Sniper]

What a circus!

All caused by an over zealous neighborhood watch captain who didn't seem to like the idea of a black youth walking through his neighborhood minding his own business.

How this SHOULD have happened.

1. Zimmerman calls 911
2. Zimmerman calls 911 a second time.
3. Zimmerman waits for the police by the mailboxes as ordered.
4. Police patrol pulls up to the youth, questions him, lets him go on his way.
5. Zimmerman gets told the kid has family visiting someone in the neighborhood and is harmless.

The way it did play out is tragic.

[Ducimus]

What a circus!


Of course it is. When something like this happens, everybody's got to short stroke it. IMO the real crux of the issue is the "stand your ground" law, which by its very naming, does not mean "follow" or "pursue", which is what this zimmerman dude did.

Now I haven't read much of this thread beyond my last post, but i'm pretty sure someone at some point said,"but but.. this Tayvon person attacked him" or something like that. Well if he had, it's hardly surprising. Wouldn't you do something to defend yourself if some John Wayne wannabe comes around following you around sticking his nose in your beeswax where you had a completely legal right to be? (Just walking down the street as i recall) The "Stand your ground" law would apply more to Tayvon then Zimmerman i would think.

That law is too easily manipulated. Of course, one thing that's been forgotten in all of this.... this is "Floriduh" were talking about here. That state isn't exactly renown for being the sharpest tool in the shed.

[krashkart]

The nasty, spiteful liberal is what you here, instead of offering rebuttle or attempting you, you just berate me.

A-L, not L-E. Rebuttal. ;)

[Tribesman]

You posted this : Just a question, how does on get tackled to the ground whilst getting punched and simultaneously call 911 and shoot the offender? God did it?

Oh dear, young man you are having big problems.
Well I could just laugh and ask you to think, but I think the second part of that request is beyond you so instead lets go with.....
So that rather cutting challenge to my post does raise a question, do you wish to challenge the omnipotence and omnipresence of any god in particular?

I responded by clarifying that he was not on the phone at the time of the shooting, it occured after Zimmerman was off the phone and Trayvon attacked him.A 911 call made by a witness who saw Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is when the screams and the gun shot were heard.This is a witness corroborated version of events which disproves your ridiculous assertion that he was on the phone while being attacked and when he shot Trayvon.

Besides just demonstrating that you havn't got a clue what you are on about and have serious problems with basic english you are also demonstrating that you will never make it as a lawyer as you alledgedly intend to be, or alledgedly was:doh:

I await your response on the issue at hand, but pretty sure I will be waiting for a long, long time.
Bubbles your arguements have been demolished by yourself and you don't even realise. You even did CAPSLOCK to emphasise how far off the mark you are

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I was not presenting it was "brand new info" but it is info that has emerged and his version of events are mostly corroborated by eye witness testimony and a plausible explanation.

The explanation is plausible. However, if you accept it, then you have to accept that as a end result of his tracking, Z provoked T. According to 776.041, that means Z loses his Stand Your Ground rights.

As for the witnesses, call me when you got someone that is willing to confirm T punched Z.

I will concede that Zimmerman should have never got out of his car to begin with or made it obvious has was following Trayvon, but does not justify Trayvon Martin's behavior.

Morally, you could be right. In accordance to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, not so much.

Zimmerman said he quit following him as the dispatcher suggested and that is when Trayvon Martin,

Even if that's true, T couldn't reasonably have known that. At best he could have seen Z on his phone. For all he knows, Z could be calling his fellow buds in for a joint ambush (which according to Z's story, is not far from the truth).

instead of running away came back and initiated contact,

Which is perfectly valid thanks to Florida's Stand Your Ground rules.

which lead to words which were no doubt heated

Which means that Z could have further provoked T in them.

and then began to assault

According to Z. Don't you think a little conflict of interest might be involved here?

There was no provocation for attacking Zimmerman.

Wrong. There was one potential and one definite provocation, undertaken at Z's own will.

Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head injury consistent with his story.

Since those are objective facts, and in his favor, he had no reason to lie about them.

Trayvon was shot at close range in the chest while he was on top of Zimmerman.Zimmerman's story makes sense and if mostly backed up by a witness or witnesses.

All they saw was a scuffle. Maybe they could see T winning over Z, but that's not very important compared to who threw the first punch or who provoked first, which they could not see.

Another disturbing thing is people thing Zimmerman should be arrested and tried, to hell with probable cause.I get that most of the public does not really understand how the law and our system works but you don't just arrest someone to arrest them so they can plead their case in court.Probable cause is required and the police along with the SAO found no probable cause for arrest based on eye witness testimony, physical evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim and the stand your ground law.Arresting someone without probable cause opens up a big can of worms legally and costs city/county/state governments millions in legal fees and settlements.

I think it is you that does not understand the legal process. Self-defence is what they call an "affirmative" defense. You have to agree you hurt or killed the guy b/f you can claim it. Thus, probable cause is already established.

Here is Wiki's entry on Affirmative defense, referencing Oran, Daniel; Mark Tosti (2000). Oran's Dictionary of the Law. Delmar. p. 20. ISBN 0-7668-1742-3.
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

Quite frankly, his own testimony accounts as an assertion, and third-party testimony that can't even say T punched first is a bit thin for "clear and convincing evidence", don't you think?

The alternative, in the "lacks citation" portion of Wiki, that
In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable
is too scary. If he gets off that way, time to change the law.

[August]

And I fear there is no crime that Spike can be charged with either. Just a dumb act that results in innocent old people being terrorized. :nope:

Let's hope the old folks sue his butt off.

[CaptainHaplo]

Trayvon's mother just filed trademarks so his name and slogans associated with the "cause" can be used (to make her money) on cd's and dvd's....

After all - cuz its all about justice for this kid, right? :nope:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

To be fair, she'll need money for all the lawsuits

[Tribesman]

Trayvon's mother just filed trademarks so his name and slogans associated with the "cause" can be used (to make her money) on cd's and dvd's....

If her representatives hadn't suggested such an action then they should have been fired.
Take the McCanns portugese tragedy for example, some people might have an issue with them "trading" on thier daughters name by forming their company.
But I don't think anyone in their right mind should have a problem with them doing it or them suing the arse of any other bastard who was doing it or suing the media for slagging them for it or their other actions and those of their friends. Though of course in the former case that would also be covered as a criminal prosecution for fraud and for the latter a totally seperate financial set up was made as the limited company was not created to sue the media.

You really hit a dud note there Haplo:yep:

[Aramike]

You know the worst part of this tragedy? It exposes that most people are arrogant and rush to judgement in a way profoundly opposed to the moral sense of justice our system is based upon.

Everyone should take a moment and step back - you're not debating theory, here. Something ACTUALLY happened, and a kid is ACTUALLY dead, and a man's life ACTUALLY hangs in the balance upon the best deduction law enforcement can interpret from sparse evidence. Anyone who sits around making statements of finality regarding the guilt OR innocence of Zimmerman are only exposing a sad sense of divisive arrogance, and while a debate on this message board is likely harmless, we should not forget that this is far-reaching nationally and such a propensity to rush to judgement is already proving dangerous.

Perhaps we should be better than that? That's really what I mean.

In any case, my opinion is such: judging by what I've HEARD, both parties are wrong is some way or another. However, the more important issue is the fundamental flaw built into a "Stand Your Ground" type of law.

That flaw is simple: the key witness is the survivor. As such, this type of law gives great leniency to the "winner" in a two-person conflict that both people are equally responsible for, and that prospect is rightfully scary.

On the other hand, it seems to me that a morally proper position for one to take is that any individual should have the right to stand their ground from an aggressor. Yet, I can't help but to worry about how this type of law results in a "he said/she said" type of investigation, but without the "she said" part of it.

Such is the burden of an imperfect system of justice.

Still, there's another side to this story that bothers me: Trayvon Martin, by many accounts, was a fairly troubled youth. We're not talking about an Eagle Scout, here. Yet, it took quite some time for that information to surface. Anytime such an obvious component of a story is clearly either overlooked or outright repressed, my BS detector goes into overdrive.

I suspect that many in the media wanted a specific story out of this case then unwittingly conspired to make it so, and we're seeing the results of the careless reporting so common in our modern day, sensationalized news cycle.

[joegrundman]

good post, aramike

it made me think that if you look at it in a game theory kind of way..

you could posit a collision with two people, and both believe both to be armed and both are able to make a stand your ground defense, and the "winner" of the confrontation is likely to be unpunished, while the loser is dead..

then both parties can immediately consider themselves to be in a life-threatening situation. The life-threatening quality of the situation is such that whoever draws first has a huge advantage over the other, and therefore if you wish to win from this situation the solution is be the first to draw.

Imagine we set up the game like this

each round you have three options:

retreat
stand
shoot

and each player must choose one option each round

at a very crude level it could be like paper/scissors/rock

stand beats retreat, shoot beats stand, retreat beats shoot(in a sense)

or you could add points to the options, as in the prisoner's dilemma , like this (varying the points can alter the probabilities of the outcomes):

retreat - retreat = +10 points/ +10 points
retreat - stand = -10 points/ +10 points
stand - shoot = -10points/ +10 points
stand - stand = 0 points/ 0 points
retreat - shoot = -10 points/-10 points
shoot - shoot = -10 points/-10 points

in any case the point i'm making here is that the flaw in the law that you describe enables "shoot beats stand", which likely changes the nature of the game substantially from a game in which the "stand-shoot" outcome was different (-10, -5 for example, in a case where any dead body from a shootout results in a prosecution for the winner)

[mookiemookie]

You know the worst part of this tragedy? It exposes that most people are arrogant and rush to judgement in a way profoundly opposed to the moral sense of justice our system is based upon.

Everyone should take a moment and step back - you're not debating theory, here. Something ACTUALLY happened, and a kid is ACTUALLY dead, and a man's life ACTUALLY hangs in the balance upon the best deduction law enforcement can interpret from sparse evidence. Anyone who sits around making statements of finality regarding the guilt OR innocence of Zimmerman are only exposing a sad sense of divisive arrogance, and while a debate on this message board is likely harmless, we should not forget that this is far-reaching nationally and such a propensity to rush to judgement is already proving dangerous.

Perhaps we should be better than that? That's really what I mean.

In any case, my opinion is such: judging by what I've HEARD, both parties are wrong is some way or another. However, the more important issue is the fundamental flaw built into a "Stand Your Ground" type of law.

That flaw is simple: the key witness is the survivor. As such, this type of law gives great leniency to the "winner" in a two-person conflict that both people are equally responsible for, and that prospect is rightfully scary.

On the other hand, it seems to me that a morally proper position for one to take is that any individual should have the right to stand their ground from an aggressor. Yet, I can't help but to worry about how this type of law results in a "he said/she said" type of investigation, but without the "she said" part of it.

Such is the burden of an imperfect system of justice.

Still, there's another side to this story that bothers me: Trayvon Martin, by many accounts, was a fairly troubled youth. We're not talking about an Eagle Scout, here. Yet, it took quite some time for that information to surface. Anytime such an obvious component of a story is clearly either overlooked or outright repressed, my BS detector goes into overdrive.

I suspect that many in the media wanted a specific story out of this case then unwittingly conspired to make it so, and we're seeing the results of the careless reporting so common in our modern day, sensationalized news cycle.

You make some very good points. There does seem to be a mob justice mentality, and I'll admit I even had some feelings of that in the beginning. But when things get so out of hand that we have Spike Lee tweeting an address where he thinks Zimmerman might live, presumably so that a crew can go over to his house an enforce "justice" then things have gone too far.

And you make another good point about this "Stand Your Ground" law. Dead men tell no tales, and all we're left with is Zimmerman's inherently biased account, and two conflicting witness testimonies. Martin was surely standing his ground as much as Zimmerman was, and when a law pits two people against each other in fight to the death with the winner avoiding punishment....holy crap, what a barbaric law.

But where I completely disagree is that Martin's past has any relevance here. How on Earth does the fact that he was suspended from school make a lick of difference to the fact that by all accounts he was simply walking down the street when Zimmerman first chased him down? I think the transformation of Trayvon Martin from an average middle class high school student who was walking down the street into a dangerous thug who was asking for it is absolutely appalling. It allows the simple minded and those who don't have the mental capacity to overcome their "just world" biases to categorize the whole event - "a thug n**** deserving of punishment got what he deserved. Chances are Martin would have ended up in jail anyways, so better to take him out now before we pay for his time in a resort prison." But the reality is that he was a pretty average school kid who said and did the stupid things that most teenagers say and do. I guess reality is too complicated for some.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman

A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-family-seeks-fbi-investigation-killing/story?id=15949879)was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman (http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239), the neighborhood watch captain who says he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.

Continues here (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/trayvon-martin-case-exclusive-surveillance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897#.T3RPY9VIsSM).

[breadcatcher101]

The police report noted he was injured as described and did in fact get attention to those wounds, so not seeing blood in the poor quality tape shown is no surprise.

With that logic I don't see him with a gun either.

How can a man shoot someone without a gun?

Had to have been someone else, maybe Martin was wounded already?

[Sailor Steve]

I think that's the point. Is the police report accurate? Some people have been claiming police collusion. There would be wounds the video doesn't show, but the question is there.

[breadcatcher101]

By "some people" are you talking about Martin's peers?

The media who still shows his picture as a 12 year old boy?

The New Black Panthers who have a bounty on Zimmerman dead or alive?

What people exactly? And on what grounds are they implying that the police report is false?

[Sailor Steve]

I said "claiming", and by "some people" I meant some people here, from earlier posts. I don't know what the truth is, and I'm keeping an open mind about it. Your mind seems to be made up already, along with those of many on both sides of this.

I don't claim to know the truth. I'm just asking questions, and pointing out what seem to me to be inconsistencies.

[Tribesman]

The media who still shows his picture as a 12 year old boy?


Could be worse, could be the freaky wingnut media who used a photo of someone else entirely to show he really was a gangsta:doh:

[mookiemookie]

Could be worse, could be the freaky wingnut media who used a photo of someone else entirely to show he really was a gangsta:doh:

But that makes it easier for them to sleep better at night, knowing than a gangsta thug was blown away instead of a kid walking down the street, doing nothing wrong.

[August]

But that makes it easier for them to sleep better at night, knowing than a gangsta thug was blown away instead of a kid walking down the street, doing nothing wrong.

Because those are the only two options in your black and white world right?

Zimmerman was first identified as white apparently based only on his Jewish sounding surname. Finding out that he was Latino must have been somewhat disconcerting. At least until it was revealed one of his parents was white and the race baiting could then continue.

[Tribesman]

Well Mookie, perhaps they was so busy trying to find a decent photo of Zimmerman they just didn't have time to get an actual photo of the other person.

Zimmerman was first identified as white apparently based only on his Jewish sounding surname.
Zimmerman is white
Finding out that he was Latino must have been somewhat disconcerting
Zimmerman is white.
Something so plain and simple but some people get so hung up on pinkness and just can't get it into their heads

[AVGWarhawk]

Zimmerman is white.
Something so plain and simple but some people get so hung up on pinkness and just can't get it into their heads


He is kind of a bisque color. :hmmm:

[BossMark]

Just heard Zimmerman's Dads version on sky news :har::har:

[Dowly]

Just heard Zimmerman's Dads version on sky news :har::har:

You lazy you. :O:

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16198895

EDIT: What is more interesting is that CCTV footage of Zimmerman shown in the same video.

[MothBalls]

Would this story have gotten this much attention if Zimmerman was black?

[BossMark]

You lazy you. :O:

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16198895

EDIT: What is more interesting is that CCTV footage of Zimmerman shown in the same video.
Thanks for that :salute:

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=Kazuaki Shimazaki II;1862301]The explanation is plausible. However, if you accept it, then you have to accept that as a end result of his tracking, Z provoked T. According to 776.041, that means Z loses his Stand Your Ground rights.

Following him while reporting him to the police does not count as provocation, as have tried to tell you before. Now, had Zimmerman attempted to detain him, then that would but following someone so can report them to the police is not stalking, it is not provocation.Trayvon attacked Zimmerman without provocation and lost his life, stand your ground protects Zimmerman.The Police realized this based on the physical evidence and witness statements, as did the State Attorney's Office which is why he was not charged.Now due to manufactured outrage, now taxpayer money is being wasted.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well Mookie, perhaps they was so busy trying to find a decent photo of Zimmerman they just didn't have time to get an actual photo of the other person.


Zimmerman is white

Zimmerman is white.
Something so plain and simple but some people get so hung up on pinkness and just can't get it into their heads


Zimmerman is half hispanic. Sure, he has a white name but perhaps his father is white and mother is hispanic. Does not matter though, race is a bs issue put into this by the media and people with the "victim" mentality.

[Bubblehead1980]

But that makes it easier for them to sleep better at night, knowing than a gangsta thug was blown away instead of a kid walking down the street, doing nothing wrong.


Turns out, he was a bit of a thug or wanting to be one.The more recent photos show it as does his pattern of delinquent behavior.Act like a thug, people will assume you are one.I will say this, I feel bad for Trayvon and his family.I feel bad that he probably made a youthful mistake and trying to attack Zimmerman, it's a shame he did not live so could learn a lesson, perhaps he could have turned out to be a good person but no matter what, when you attack someone, especially without provocation, you run the risk of things not going your way.Just a sad situation all around, really is.

[Bubblehead1980]

I think that's the point. Is the police report accurate? Some people have been claiming police collusion. There would be wounds the video doesn't show, but the question is there.


While I am no fan of the police, people always claim police collusion when things do not work out in their favor.Police investigated the shooting, looked at the physical evidence(Zimmerman had a broken nose, head injury, grass stains on his clothing) and took witness statements.After this, they concluded that with the evidence supporting Zimmerman's side of the story, there was no probable cause for an arrest.I assure you, the SAO reviewed (I am from Florida and where I lived yhe SAO always reviews cases,even if no arrest is made, that the Police, Sheriffs, and Highway Patrol investigates, pretty sure this is universal across the state) the case and agreed with the Sanford PD.The Grand Jury will most likely not indict Zimmerman but if they do because are swayed by the outcry and not the law, well I believe justice will prevail at trial.

[Dowly]

Dear Bubs

Next time, use the Multi-quote button found in the right-bottom corner of a post
and answer in one post.

Thank you

[CaptainHaplo]

Would this story have gotten this much attention if Zimmerman was black?

Obviously not. Of course - two white guys - who were nationals of one of our best allies - killed by a black man doesn't even register on the scope of the president....

http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/29/parents-of-british-tourists-murdered-in-florida-lash-out-at-obama/

Not that Obama would pander to race baiting or anything.

@Bubblehead - stop quoting tribesman. Arguing with idiocy makes you what?

The president has a half caucasian parent and a "Black" (Kenyan) parent and is deemed to be African American. Thus Zimmerman - being born half caucasain and half hispanic - is (and can legally claim to be) hispanic. The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Following him while reporting him to the police does not count as provocation, as have tried to tell you before. Now, had Zimmerman attempted to detain him, then that would but following someone so can report them to the police is not stalking, it is not provocation.Trayvon attacked Zimmerman without provocation and lost his life, stand your ground protects Zimmerman.The Police realized this based on the physical evidence and witness statements, as did the State Attorney's Office which is why he was not charged.Now due to manufactured outrage, now taxpayer money is being wasted.

Yes it does, b/c the guy being stalked has no means of identifying why you are tracking him, as I've tried to explain to you before. That's why the police are deemed to be not doing a good job.

If he tried to detain him, it would pass over the realm of provocation, into the realm of assault.

The police report noted he was injured as described and did in fact get attention to those wounds, so not seeing blood in the poor quality tape shown is no surprise.

With that logic I don't see him with a gun either.

How can a man shoot someone without a gun?

Had to have been someone else, maybe Martin was wounded already?

Well, it is possible for a small amount of blood to be lost in the admittedly crappy image, but I don't see a large amount of blood or any other sign this guy was nearly killed. It was noted that the police recommended hospital (but then, in America it seems they'll recommend hospital for a abrased knee), but Z wound up not going which puts a dent in the claim that he was really in fear of his life. Without that, exception condition (a) in Article 776.041 or even the conditions for using deadly forced specified in 776.012 cannot be achieved.

You know the worst part of this tragedy? It exposes that most people are arrogant and rush to judgement in a way profoundly opposed to the moral sense of justice our system is based upon.

Everyone should take a moment and step back - you're not debating theory, here. Something ACTUALLY happened, and a kid is ACTUALLY dead, and a man's life ACTUALLY hangs in the balance upon the best deduction law enforcement can interpret from sparse evidence.

I'll argue the inverse. From what has already been leaked, the police already have the essential elements. They know Z tracked T (provocation), a scuffle happened, and Z wound up killing T with his gun. The only part they don't know is who punched first but since Z tracked T it is of secondary importance.

That flaw is simple: the key witness is the survivor. As such, this type of law gives great leniency to the "winner" in a two-person conflict that both people are equally responsible for, and that prospect is rightfully scary.

On the other hand, it seems to me that a morally proper position for one to take is that any individual should have the right to stand their ground from an aggressor. Yet, I can't help but to worry about how this type of law results in a "he said/she said" type of investigation, but without the "she said" part of it.

I'll say the problem is not so much agreeing with Stand Your Ground, than the concept that you don't have to inconvenienced by even a short period of arrest and in-station interrogation or trial after popping someone.

The nature of self-defense is that it is an Affirmative Defense Justification. You have to agree you killed the guy, thus effectively confessing to manslaughter, before trying to justify it by asserting and proving that a self-defense situation occurred.

Still, there's another side to this story that bothers me: Trayvon Martin, by many accounts, was a fairly troubled youth. We're not talking about an Eagle Scout, here. Yet, it took quite some time for that information to surface. Anytime such an obvious component of a story is clearly either overlooked or outright repressed, my BS detector goes into overdrive.

From what I've heard so far, T's biggest crimes are supposedly having a marijuana bag (maybe it means more elsewhere, but this is America), which may even be empty and some wierd clothing choices. Obviously, the victim family is not interested in publicizing such elements, but they are really inconsequential to the situation especially in comparison to the accusations laid on Z.

[Tribesman]

Zimmerman is half hispanic. Sure, he has a white name but perhaps his father is white and mother is hispanic. Does not matter though, race is a bs issue put into this by the media and people with the "victim" mentality.
It appears the people making an issue on that here are those who have a problem with him being white.
It also appears those people are absolutely clueless on some really basic concepts of the matter.

@Bubblehead - stop quoting tribesman. Arguing with idiocy makes you what?

So you are back to your old trolling habits again:yawn:

The president has a half caucasian parent and a "Black" (Kenyan) parent and is deemed to be African American. Thus Zimmerman - being born half caucasain and half hispanic - is (and can legally claim to be) hispanic. The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.
Well now Haplo where does this go:hmmm: ah yes, idiocy wasn't it?
How many really stupid errors did you fit into that single post Haplo?
Can you spot the 4 real biggies:yeah:
well done Haplo you certainly excel, you can join the class of bubbles:88)

Perhaps there is a lesson there, if you actually read what you are trying to slag off there is a chance you wouldn't be making such a complete fool of yourself by making so many glaringly obvious errors

[mookiemookie]

The key is that this doesn't fit the race baiting scenario that some on the left want to exploit, so it is ignored as much as possible.

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist. :roll:

[August]

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist. :roll:

You're right Mookie, whites certainly aren't the only ones who can be racist but i'll bet that when the Crown Heights type riots start this summer over this tragedy it'll be whites and not hispanics who are targeted by the mob.

[Aramike]

But where I completely disagree is that Martin's past has any relevance here. How on Earth does the fact that he was suspended from school make a lick of difference to the fact that by all accounts he was simply walking down the street when Zimmerman first chased him down? I think the transformation of Trayvon Martin from an average middle class high school student who was walking down the street into a dangerous thug who was asking for it is absolutely appalling. It allows the simple minded and those who don't have the mental capacity to overcome their "just world" biases to categorize the whole event - "a thug n**** deserving of punishment got what he deserved. Chances are Martin would have ended up in jail anyways, so better to take him out now before we pay for his time in a resort prison." But the reality is that he was a pretty average school kid who said and did the stupid things that most teenagers say and do. I guess reality is too complicated for some. I don't think I stated my point well. I agree with you that being suspended for a little pot has no bearing on the case itself. My issue is that this information should have been made as public as everything else before judgements were rushed to.

What if Trayvon was suspended for beating the crap out of another student? What if it was something worse? These things COULD be relevant.

The problem is that many in the media decided to create a story rather than simply report it. Innocent black kid shot by overzealous, racist white guy. What they SHOULD have done was simply report the story without portraying the details specifically to support the narrative that they knew would result.

Oh, and Zimmerman is white ... in the same way President Obama is white. The skin color discussion is absurd, as the man identifies himself as hispanic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#George_Zimmerman

[Aramike]

From what I've heard so far, T's biggest crimes are supposedly having a marijuana bag (maybe it means more elsewhere, but this is America), which may even be empty and some wierd clothing choices. Obviously, the victim family is not interested in publicizing such elements, but they are really inconsequential to the situation especially in comparison to the accusations laid on Z.That's the problem, isn't it? From what you've heard so far...

Maybe they are inconsequential, maybe they aren't. But I can't lie, Trayvon's Twitter accounts are indeed troubling.

I think it would be highly relevant to the case if the boy had a propensity toward violence. And, like it or not, despite what the 911 dispatcher instructed, Zimmerman WAS within his rights to follow the kid. And if Trayvon attacked him, this information would lead to Zimmerman's credibility.

But it seems that no one is interested in Zimmerman's credibility. Rather, many of us just assume the man was completely in the wrong.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Now, let's say he does have a "prospensity towards violence". Still doesn't mean very much legally given the already reasonably established elements of the case. Z provoked T with his tracking. That's all that's required to shift him from the protected 776.012 to 776.041, which is not at all immunized under 776.031. This opinion is apparently supported by the guy who scribbled the law:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/v-fullstory/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.html

[CaptainHaplo]

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist. :roll:

No mookie - racism isn't limited to whites....

But then again - the assumption is that this was a racist crime - and that is based off of the media and politicians feeding the frenzy. Partially doing so by calling Zimmerman "white".

Why refuse to deal with his ethnicity - unless some people have an agenda that is furthered by black vs white angst...

This doesn't apply to you - but rather many others on the left who are intentionally using this situation to create anger encourage resentment - which will lead to more problems.

[Tribesman]

Because as everyone knows, only white people can be racist. :roll:
You don't mean to say some people are playing the white mans victim card.
Naughty mookie, how dare you suggest such a thing:rotfl2:


Partially doing so by calling Zimmerman "white".

poor bubbles still stuck on getting the basics wrong :doh:.
oh sorry thats Haplo:woot:

Why refuse to deal with his ethnicity
Do you mean as a white hispanic?
The people here who seem to have a problem with it are those who don't like him being white.
And that is white not "white":yeah:

but rather many others on the left who are intentionally using this situation to create anger encourage resentment
So from the right I wonder what the situation is?
When this story went national then international I wonder how many posts it took the Stormfront forums before the shade of his skin got those people ranting about what WHITE is and how the ****** ******* media(and those ar two normal words not curses, guess what they are?) are waging a war on the white man.
Bonus points for how long it took someone to call George not white but Jewish? which if anyone who holds those far right ideologies had a functioning mind would raise a bit of a paradox over their rants about the liberal media and its anti white agenda

[AVGWarhawk]

I still say he is bisque color.

[Sailor Steve]

But it seems that no one is interested in Zimmerman's credibility. Rather, many of us just assume the man was completely in the wrong.
And others are convinced he was completely in the right. No one knows for sure which is correct at this point, but I am sure that when proof positive comes out the people who are are convinced are going to be crowing about how they were right and the other guys were idiots.

It's a game people play, and it's a bad one. Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.

[Platapus]

I still say he is bisque color.

Only a matter of time before someone throws down the soup card. :nope:

[MothBalls]

Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.That's called marriage.

[CaptainHaplo]

And others are convinced he was completely in the right. No one knows for sure which is correct at this point, but I am sure that when proof positive comes out the people who are are convinced are going to be crowing about how they were right and the other guys were idiots.

It's a game people play, and it's a bad one. Being convinced before the facts are in is always wrong. Period.


Personally - based on the facts as they are known currently - I'd say BOTH of them were wrong. I have already stated that Zimmerman should be held accountable - likely for neglicent homicide (as his negligence - IE refusal to listen to the police dispatcher when he was told he didn't need to follow the suspect) contributed to the situation.

But hey, apparently because I am conservative and for gun rights, I must be racist....

[Bubblehead1980]

Yes it does, b/c the guy being stalked has no means of identifying why you are tracking him, as I've tried to explain to you before. That's why the police are deemed to be not doing a good job.

If he tried to detain him, it would pass over the realm of provocation, into the realm of assault.



Well, it is possible for a small amount of blood to be lost in the admittedly crappy image, but I don't see a large amount of blood or any other sign this guy was nearly killed. It was noted that the police recommended hospital (but then, in America it seems they'll recommend hospital for a abrased knee), but Z wound up not going which puts a dent in the claim that he was really in fear of his life. Without that, exception condition (a) in Article 776.041 or even the conditions for using deadly forced specified in 776.012 cannot be achieved.



I'll argue the inverse. From what has already been leaked, the police already have the essential elements. They know Z tracked T (provocation), a scuffle happened, and Z wound up killing T with his gun. The only part they don't know is who punched first but since Z tracked T it is of secondary importance.



I'll say the problem is not so much agreeing with Stand Your Ground, than the concept that you don't have to inconvenienced by even a short period of arrest and in-station interrogation or trial after popping someone.

The nature of self-defense is that it is an Affirmative Defense Justification. You have to agree you killed the guy, thus effectively confessing to manslaughter, before trying to justify it by asserting and proving that a self-defense situation occurred.



From what I've heard so far, T's biggest crimes are supposedly having a marijuana bag (maybe it means more elsewhere, but this is America), which may even be empty and some wierd clothing choices. Obviously, the victim family is not interested in publicizing such elements, but they are really inconsequential to the situation especially in comparison to the accusations laid on Z.


Simply following someone so you can report them to the police does not constitute STALKING or anything that could be considered provocation unless were making threats etc but Zimmerman was on the phone while he was following Martin and said nothing to provoke him.Zimmerman could be charged with a host of things if he tried to detain Martin unlawfully, this is true but there was no provocation.Under Florida law, there actually has to be a pattern of behavior to have a legitimate case of stalking.The Police will arrest people for it sometimes, but very few SAO's will really push it without a pattern because most judges will throw it out once the defense(any decent attorney would) motions for dismissal. This was my experience working with defense attorneys anyway.


Zimmerman was taken to the police station after he was given first aid for his injuries.However, arresting someone and putting them on trial for defending themselves is not right and that is why we have stand your ground.Growing up in FL, I remember a couple times over the years where people were arrested for shooting intruders or people who attacked them in public and that alone was a miscarriage of justice.I remember when the castle doctrine and stand your ground were passed into law, it's a good thing as it prevents(well, legally) the monday morning quarterbacking that people want to do in cases where someone ends up dead or seriously injured.No one has a right to dictate what you should do to defend yourself if attacked.

I have said before Zimmerman should have never got out of the car or made it obvious he was following Trayvon while calling BUT he did nothing illegal, nothing to provoke the assault. Zimmerman claims he walked back towards his car when the dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon, this seems to be true as he continued talking to the dispatcher after and said "OK", Zimmerman also said he would meet the officers in his car somewhere.After he hung up with the dispatcher, is when Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.Witness called 911 and saw Zimmerman being attacked, then the now infamous gun shot went off in the backround of the 911 call.

I will say it again, sad situation all around but when it comes down to it, Trayvon picked a fight because he was mad about being followed and attacked Zimmerman without provocation and lost his life over it.Slamming someone's head into the pavement? Pretty brutal.Zimmerman could have died or could be brain damaged the rest of his life.

[Bubblehead1980]

Personally - based on the facts as they are known currently - I'd say BOTH of them were wrong. I have already stated that Zimmerman should be held accountable - likely for neglicent homicide (as his negligence - IE refusal to listen to the police dispatcher when he was told he didn't need to follow the suspect) contributed to the situation.

But hey, apparently because I am conservative and for gun rights, I must be racist....


Wrong, turns out Zimmerman did walk back to his car after the police dispatcher told him not to follow, Zimmerman acknowledged him on the tape and then a conversation continued for a minute as Zimmerman walked back and said he wanted the officers to call him when on scene,so he could meet up with them, this seems to corroborate his account.Zimmerman was attacked near his car after walking back, Trayvon saw this and approached him, words were exchanged and Trayvon decked him, then slammed his head into the pavement. Trayvon seems to have been the aggressor given the evidence, the above mentioned put along with the witness testimony and Zimmerman's injuries, proves it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Wrong, turns out Zimmerman did walk back to his car after the police dispatcher told him not to follow, Zimmerman acknowledged him on the tape and then a conversation continued for a minute as Zimmerman walked back and said he wanted the officers to call him when on scene,so he could meet up with them, this seems to corroborate his account.Zimmerman was attacked near his car after walking back, Trayvon saw this and approached him, words were exchanged and Trayvon decked him, then slammed his head into the pavement. Trayvon seems to have been the aggressor given the evidence, the above mentioned put along with the witness testimony and Zimmerman's injuries, proves it.

Bubblehead - once he decided to chase T he had already gone too far. Common sense - if you think a "thug" is out casing your neighborhood - you think he is armed and on drugs, your going to RUN after him? Remember Z was out of breath - sorry that doesn't wash either. That is the LAST thing a sane, calm and collected person would do. Its asking for trouble. Z cannot claim his actions - intentional or not - did not contribute to the ending situation.

Honestly - I can sum it up like this - if you carry, you have to always be cognizent of your surroundings and situation. You do NOT EVER go "pursuing" anyone - especially when your armed and you think the other person is. To do so is the height of irresponsibility and must be dealt with. As a gun owner, and one who carries often, I understand that it is a measure of last resort - and it is my duty to do everything reasonable to avoid having to use it. Following what he thought was an "armed, drugged up thug" is the antitheses of responsible behavior.

[vienna]

the above mentioned put along with the witness testimony and Zimmerman's injuries, proves it.


Odd, I saw a clip of the P.D.'s surveillance tapes showing Zimmerman being taken into the station about a half hour after the incident and there was no indication or visible evidence of the alleged "viciuos" attack (no blood, no gaping wound in the back of the head, etc.) and Zimmerman did not appear to be at all affected by the encounter. As I said, odd that... :hmmm:

...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Odd, I saw a clip of the P.D.'s surveillance tapes showing Zimmerman being taken into the station about a half hour after the incident and there was no indication or visible evidence of the alleged "viciuos" attack (no blood, no gaping wound in the back of the head, etc.) and Zimmerman did not appear to be at all affected by the encounter. As I said, odd that... :hmmm:

...

It may have been mentioned, but the funeral director who prepared Trayvon's remains for interment said there was no evidence of any kind of struggle on Trayvon's hands. He'd been a funeral director for 30 plus years, and said he'd seen "everything."

Of course, perhaps this is an appeal to authority?

[vienna]

It may have been mentioned, but the funeral director who prepared Trayvon's remains for interment said there was no evidence of any kind of struggle on Trayvon's hands. He'd been a funeral director for 30 plus years, and said he'd seen "everything."

Combine our two above posts and it does raise some interesting questions... :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Simply following someone so you can report them to the police does not constitute STALKING or anything that could be considered provocation unless were making threats etc



That argument would only be valid if Trayvon knew that Zimmerman was talking to the police. Which he had no way of knowing.

From Trayvon's viewpoint, there was this man following him talking on a cell phone. It was possible, from Trayvon's viewpoint that Zimmerman could have been calling some of his beer buddies to come out and attack Trayvon.

From Trayvon's viewpoint, using the information that he had access to, Trayvon had no idea what Zimmerman was doing.

Did Zimmerman ever identify himself as a member of a neighbourhood watch?

[Tribesman]

But hey, apparently because I am conservative and for gun rights, I must be racist....
No, you would be a racist if you had a problem about Zimmerman being white.
It certainly seems several people in the topic have a problem with him being white, so do you have a problem about Zimmerman being white?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Simply following someone so you can report them to the police

How many times do I have to explain to you that the guy being tracked cannot tell who you are calling?

does not constitute STALKING or anything that could be considered provocation unless were making threats etc but Zimmerman was on the phone while he was following Martin and said nothing to provoke him.Zimmerman could be charged with a host of things if he tried to detain Martin unlawfully, this is true but there was no provocation.Under Florida law, there actually has to be a pattern of behavior to have a legitimate case of stalking.The Police will arrest people for it sometimes, but very few SAO's will really push it without a pattern because most judges will throw it out once the defense(any decent attorney would) motions for dismissal. This was my experience working with defense attorneys anyway.

Zimmerman was taken to the police station after he was given first aid for his injuries.However, arresting someone and putting them on trial for defending themselves is not right and that is why we have stand your ground.Growing up in FL, I remember a couple times over the years where people were arrested for shooting intruders or people who attacked them in public and that alone was a miscarriage of justice.I remember when the castle doctrine and stand your ground were passed into law, it's a good thing as it prevents(well, legally) the monday morning quarterbacking that people want to do in cases where someone ends up dead or seriously injured.No one has a right to dictate what you should do to defend yourself if attacked.

...

I will say it again, sad situation all around but when it comes down to it, Trayvon picked a fight because he was mad about being followed and attacked Zimmerman without provocation and lost his life over it.Slamming someone's head into the pavement? Pretty brutal.Zimmerman could have died or could be brain damaged the rest of his life.

Compared to a gunshot?

Your argument isn't even consistent. You say Travyon picked a fight b/c he was mad about being followed. OK, I don't know the intricacies of Floridan law and so cannot say whether Zimmerman's actions qualified for the legal definition of stalking, but if T fought because he was mad about being followed, he was already provoked. Ref 776.041, Z loses justification of self defence unless he "reasonably believes" he's in mortal danger, and even then he is duty bound to retreat since he provoked the fight. The injuries are so small they are not visible on the film and the guy didn't even go the hospital (which will also have the side benefit of leaving more records of his supposed life-threatening injuries), which puts real dents on the theory that he felt, and/or indeed was in, mortal danger. In fact, one could not help but suspect that he's trying to avoid leaving any record that his injuries were minor so it was BS that he had a reasonable need to use a gun).

As for your Florida buds, they were not arrested and put on trial not so much for defending themselves, but for the part where in the process they trampled on someone elses' rights. To be allowed to stand up for your rights is one thing, but where you gravely infringed someone elses' a thorough investigation is necessary to substantiate your buds' claim that it was indeed Justified, or indeed if the victims (since they are presumably dead or wounded after your buds shot them) infringed your buds' rights to start with at all. If that means Arrest and Trial, then so be it.

[Aramike]

Now, let's say he does have a "prospensity towards violence". Still doesn't mean very much legally given the already reasonably established elements of the case. Z provoked T with his tracking. That's all that's required to shift him from the protected 776.012 to 776.041, which is not at all immunized under 776.031. This opinion is apparently supported by the guy who scribbled the law:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/v-fullstory/2703579/state-senator-calls-for-hearings.htmlYou've said that Trayvon was provoked because he was tracked, but I fail to see how tracking someone should necessarily be a provocation of violence.

[mookiemookie]

You've said that Trayvon was provoked because he was tracked, but I fail to see how tracking someone should necessarily be a provocation of violence.

If someone was obviously chasing me down a dark street while on their cell phone, you bet I'd stand my ground.

[Rockstar]

I was wondering does anyone know if Zimmerman's car was a marked car? Did it have a yellowlight or a neighborhood watch decal identifying it as such?

[Aramike]

If someone was obviously chasing me down a dark street while on their cell phone, you bet I'd stand my ground.Agreed. But standing your ground and ATTACKING the guy chasing you are two very separate, distinct things. And those things are, in fact, at the heart of this case.

If a guy is following and you turn around and confront him verbally, no problem. If a guy is following you and you turn around and attack him physically, I would say that the pursuer should have a right to defend himself.

In my opinion, this entire case hinges upon THAT moment.

Regardless, I think Zimmerman is a turd, but being a turd isn't illegal.

[Stealhead]

Agreed. But standing your ground and ATTACKING the guy chasing you are two very separate, distinct things. And those things are, in fact, at the heart of this case.

If a guy is following and you turn around and confront him verbally, no problem. If a guy is following you and you turn around and attack him physically, I would say that the pursuer should have a right to defend himself.

In my opinion, this entire case hinges upon THAT moment.

Regardless, I think Zimmerman is a turd, but being a turd isn't illegal.


Again a bit of assuming being done here how do we know that such a thing occurred how do we not know that Martin was grabbed suddenly by Zimmerman? I will tell you this if I am walking down the street and someone just up and forcibly grabs me with no reasoning no identification(by the way cops have attempted to charge people with assault plain clothed cops in particular only to get it thrown out by a judge when it is proven that they did not ID themselves you have no right to forcibly touch another person) they instigated hand to hand combat with me and I am going to put that person on the ground and get in control of the situation simply as that.If a dude carrying a gun can shot on fear then so can I or any other as well take another down to the dirt if they are an unknown person with unknown intent forcibly touching me.

With a person unknown to you following you your in even greater danger because you already know he is on to you for some reason so if this type of person is upon you then you have little option for conversation your only option is to display via body language that you known that they are there and that you are prepared to defend yourself (and changing of clothing appearance is a body language sign of preparing for a fight rolling up selves rolling shoulders taking a hat or hood of if on or putting one on if off hands in pockets if in pockets hands outside of pockets if inside pockets)

Another factor to also consider is that many LE officers are killed when they get attacked by a person and are unable to get to their weapon some have been beaten to death.I think it is possible that Martin got the better of Zimmerman (regardless of who started it) and then stopped and then still got the weapon pulled on him and got shot that is a possible scenario.All though my big problem is that Zimmerman looks pretty good on that police video never have I seen someone get into a nasty fight supposedly for their lives and look so chipper only hours later.You get into a fight like that you look like it even days later even on a fuzzy surveillance video.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed. But standing your ground and ATTACKING the guy chasing you are two very separate, distinct things. And those things are, in fact, at the heart of this case.

If a guy is following and you turn around and confront him verbally, no problem. If a guy is following you and you turn around and attack him physically, I would say that the pursuer should have a right to defend himself.

In my opinion, this entire case hinges upon THAT moment.

Regardless, I think Zimmerman is a turd, but being a turd isn't illegal.

My concern has really gone away from the "who did what to who"'s in this case and has shifted towards this "stand your ground" law. It just seems to be poorly thought out, poorly enforced and rests on a shaky premise, as this case illustrates. I think more people should be concerned with revising or throwing out this law instead of getting into the "Zimmerman's a bad guy/good guy" debate

[Spike88]

This shows how far out of the loop I am, I just heard of this story today.

After reading up on it, I was convinced Zimmerman should be charged. But after finding out Trayvon has been suspended 3 times, and was once found with stolen paraphernalia in his back pack, I'm not so sure that he's entirely innocent. As I wasn't there when it happened, I honestly cant say what happened, and at this point it's all "He said She Said".

What I can say is that Zimmerman should definitely be banned from Neighbor Hood watch as he did go against their rules. On top of that, I think if this does go to trial, at this point you honestly would have a hard time finding an impartial jury. I just hope no one lays hands(save for the police) on Zimmerman, as that would just spiral this out of control.

I don't know the law, but wouldn't a polygraph help clear some things up?

Also, the Media seems to be doing what they do best, and sensationalizing this. If this situation had been between two white people, or two black people, I doubt it would get this much media attention.


Either way, I hope justice is served, if Zimmerman is guilty he deserves the time. Also, I wish the best to the Martin family, and I hope Trayvon is resting in peace.

[Platapus]

But after finding out Trayvon has been suspended 3 times, and was once found with stolen paraphernalia in his back pack, I'm not so sure that he's entirely innocent.

Why do you think any of this is applicable to the shooting incident?

In any case, since Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of Trayvon's past, are they really relevant?

[Spike88]

Why do you think any of this is applicable to the shooting incident?

In any case, since Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of Trayvon's past, are they really relevant?

All I'm saying is that he's not an entirely "good" kid. His parent's and his lawyer are trying to to peg him as a "good" kid who has not done anything wrong in the past, and when they found out that Zimmerman had a previous record, the father "reportedly" said my kid doesn't have a record.

I don't believe for the slightest that Trayvon deserved death, but I think the fact he has a tainted record could mean he is not entirely innocent in this case. The same is true for Zimmerman, the fact he has previous run in's with the law(which have been expunged) means that he could also be not innocent.

If one of them had a clean record and the other did not, I would take the side of whoever had a clean record. As neither of them have a clean record, I stand by my "I wasn't there, so I don't know" point of view, and just hope that justice is served.

[Stealhead]

Well actually one has a clean record where it counts which is legal record one person has a past here another does not.Just because some kid has gotten into trouble in school does not mean very much how many of us where truly 100% good kids in school not that many some people just get caught others do not not(many are sly foxes).Martin was not going to one of those "basically this a jail for kids who are not in jail at this given moment" schools (sorry but there must be 1000 names for these type schools for the really bad kids.)

Also basing guilt on ones past leads to folly easily a person that justly enforces the law should know that anyone can do something they should not regardless of past history and a past history is not a sure sign of guilt unless you catch them red handed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well actually one has a clean record where it counts which is legal record one person has a past here another does not.Just because some kid has gotten into trouble in school does not mean very much how many of us where truly 100% good kids in school not that many some people just get caught others do not not(many are sly foxes).Martin was not going to one of those "basically this a jail for kids who are not in jail at this given moment" schools (sorry but there must be 1000 names for these type schools for the really bad kids.)

Also basing guilt on ones past leads to folly easily a person that justly enforces the law should know that anyone can do something they should not regardless of past history and a past history is not a sure sign of guilt unless you catch them red handed.

Zimmerman has never been convicted of a crime. Here in the US we operate on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. At least, we are supposed to. Seems an awful lot of people want to ignore that point.

Funny you want to talk about Zimmerman's "record" in which there have been accusations but no convictions, yet want to claim the DISCIPLINARY actions (thus verified wrong behaviors) regarding Martin are irrelevant...

Double standard much?

[mookiemookie]

Zimmerman has never been convicted of a crime. Does his father's position play into that? And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005? Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?


Funny you want to talk about Zimmerman's "record" in which there have been accusations but no convictions, yet want to claim the DISCIPLINARY actions (thus verified wrong behaviors) regarding Martin are irrelevant...

Double standard much?

How is being suspended from school even remotely equivalent with being arrested by the police for domestic assault and assault on a cop?

[August]

Does his father's position play into that? And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005? Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?

Just because a person has had a restraining order issued against them that is no justification for denying them their constitutional rights forever.

[RickC Sniper]

Regardless of how this turns out as far as the authorities and their investigation, I see a civil suit in the making, and a person's history or a pattern of violence can become relevant there if I'm not mistaken.

[mookiemookie]

Just because a person has had a restraining order issued against them that is no justification for denying them their constitutional rights forever.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

[August]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

Me either but I think if it were still in effect the fact would be trumpeted far and wide however we've heard practically nothing about it.

[gimpy117]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

may i remind you this is Florida we are talking about....

[August]

may i remind you this is Florida we are talking about....

I wouldn't go there Bud.

In spite of having far more restrictive gun control laws on the books Michigan's murder rate has been consistently higher than Florida's.

[Aramike]

My concern has really gone away from the "who did what to who"'s in this case and has shifted towards this "stand your ground" law. It just seems to be poorly thought out, poorly enforced and rests on a shaky premise, as this case illustrates. I think more people should be concerned with revising or throwing out this law instead of getting into the "Zimmerman's a bad guy/good guy" debateAs I said before, I agree with you that the law itself is the more interesting issue. However, I don't think its premise is shaky.

The issue at the heart of the law is whether or not a person under attack has the moral authority to not capitulate to an aggressor, and I agree with that whole-heartedly. I think that the issue with the law is a lack of strict verbage that spells out something to the effect of what Zimmerman did, and how his right to defend himself changes.

Yet, even that would be unsatisfactory I think. I suspect this case would be totally different if it were a 250lb, 30 year old white male that was killed.

Ultimately, I'm not certain that the law is the failure here. If was Zimmerman said was true and he was indeed attacked, despite having followed Martin, he was within his bounds to defend himself. I would agree with that if it were a large, 30 year old male so I must agree with it when it comes to a smaller, 17 year old male.

Now, if he antagonized him in any way, he should lose that right. Following someone is not nor should not be legally considered antagonistic. He had has much right to watch Martin move through his neighborhood as Martin had to be there.

Herein lies the problem with any self-defense law: it comes down to whether or not we believe the survivor. What worries me about this case is that it seems there are many people with a vested interest in NOT believing Zimmerman, the facts of the case be damned.

Now I'm not saying that Zimmerman was right, or wrong, here. I AM saying that I just don't know, and I'm unwilling to take a side of someone merely because they were a black teenager.

[CaptainHaplo]

And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005?

We don't know the circumstances. Was it a 3 day order, a year long order, etc? In most jurisdictions a woman can file for an emergency order and get it ok'd by a judge temporarily without the other party ever getting an opportunity to refute the claim. In those cases, a hearing is set for 30 days, and a long term, "permanent" (which lasts a year) order is either allowed or the existing order is dismissed. So a person can have a restraining order put against them without any misdoing or even a chance to defend themselves. Your going to judge him guilty of a murder on that?

Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?

That depends on the order. Even if his right to carry was suspended under the terms of the restraining order, once that order lapsed (max one year from its inception date), his right to carry would be reinstated.

How is being suspended from school even remotely equivalent with being arrested by the police for domestic assault and assault on a cop?

Its actually worse. You see - being suspended from school means not only was young Martin accused of wrongdoing, when the matter was brought before the authority of the school, he was found "guilty" and punished from breaking "school law". He has his opportunity to assert a defense, and it was found lacking. His "oh so caring" mother or father could have raised a ruckus and fought for their son if he had been innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no indication they did so. As a parent - I can tell you I sure as hell would go to bat for one of my kids!

On the other hand, you have Zimmerman - who has been accused of things in his past. However, the matters were either dropped before it even went to court - or he was exonerated. Given that he was accused of assualt on a cop, I can safely say its unlikely such a charge was simply dropped - DA's and cops don't let that just slide. Yet in the end - he was never found to have been guilty of anything.

Bottom line - in the world each lived in - Martin in the world of teen age school authority and Zimmerman in the much harsher world of criminal justice, Martin was "found guilty" and Zimmerman was not.

Regardless of Martin's past, its a tragedy he was killed. Regardless of Zimmerman's past (or lack thereof), he is not pure as the driven snow in this. But to want to drag up accusations against Zimmerman that were never turned into convictions - while ignoring the past actions of Martin that were deemed punishable - really stinks. It does nothing more than use the tactics of personal destruction that some (and no - not you mookie) have always tried.....

*The seriousness of the accusations outweigh the truth of the matter*

That isn't how our justice system works. Thankfully.

I have custody of my young son because of the fact that the truth matters more than the accusations. I have had untold numbers of baseless, vile accusations made against me. When it all came out in the wash, the truth was plain - and I was blessed to be granted the opportunity to give my son something he sorely needed: A stable and loving home.

If you wanted to go by mere accusation, then I should be locked up in jail while my son would be living with and learning from his mother how to defraud welfare, from his oldest brother how to live on house arrest for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, how to be ok with probation for B&E, and from his sister how to get popped for selling meth.....

If you wanted to go with truth, then I am what I am - a Father with a young man who is being successful in developing his social skills, his education, and his mental and emotional growth. No behavioral problems. He is a success - he simply needed the right environment.

Yea - I will err on the side of truth - not mere accusation.

Trayvon being dead is a tragedy - and we will never fully know what happened in detail. But it is reasonable to say that given his past, he contributed to the circumstances that got him killed. Just as Zimmerman did as well.

[mookiemookie]

Its actually worse.

I stopped reading there. I cannot have a discussion with someone who actually believes and will try to argue that being suspended from school is actually worse than being arrested. Hoo boy. :rotfl2:

[Stealhead]

We don't know the circumstances. Was it a 3 day order, a year long order, etc? In most jurisdictions a woman can file for an emergency order and get it ok'd by a judge temporarily without the other party ever getting an opportunity to refute the claim. In those cases, a hearing is set for 30 days, and a long term, "permanent" (which lasts a year) order is either allowed or the existing order is dismissed. So a person can have a restraining order put against them without any misdoing or even a chance to defend themselves. Your going to judge him guilty of a murder on that?



That depends on the order. Even if his right to carry was suspended under the terms of the restraining order, once that order lapsed (max one year from its inception date), his right to carry would be reinstated.



Its actually worse. You see - being suspended from school means not only was young Martin accused of wrongdoing, when the matter was brought before the authority of the school, he was found "guilty" and punished from breaking "school law". He has his opportunity to assert a defense, and it was found lacking. His "oh so caring" mother or father could have raised a ruckus and fought for their son if he had been innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no indication they did so. As a parent - I can tell you I sure as hell would go to bat for one of my kids!

On the other hand, you have Zimmerman - who has been accused of things in his past. However, the matters were either dropped before it even went to court - or he was exonerated. Given that he was accused of assualt on a cop, I can safely say its unlikely such a charge was simply dropped - DA's and cops don't let that just slide. Yet in the end - he was never found to have been guilty of anything.

Bottom line - in the world each lived in - Martin in the world of teen age school authority and Zimmerman in the much harsher world of criminal justice, Martin was "found guilty" and Zimmerman was not.

Regardless of Martin's past, its a tragedy he was killed. Regardless of Zimmerman's past (or lack thereof), he is not pure as the driven snow in this. But to want to drag up accusations against Zimmerman that were never turned into convictions - while ignoring the past actions of Martin that were deemed punishable - really stinks. It does nothing more than use the tactics of personal destruction that some (and no - not you mookie) have always tried.....

*The seriousness of the accusations outweigh the truth of the matter*

That isn't how our justice system works. Thankfully.

I have custody of my young son because of the fact that the truth matters more than the accusations. I have had untold numbers of baseless, vile accusations made against me. When it all came out in the wash, the truth was plain - and I was blessed to be granted the opportunity to give my son something he sorely needed: A stable and loving home.

If you wanted to go by mere accusation, then I should be locked up in jail while my son would be living with and learning from his mother how to defraud welfare, from his oldest brother how to live on house arrest for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, how to be ok with probation for B&E, and from his sister how to get popped for selling meth.....

If you wanted to go with truth, then I am what I am - a Father with a young man who is being successful in developing his social skills, his education, and his mental and emotional growth. No behavioral problems. He is a success - he simply needed the right environment.

Yea - I will err on the side of truth - not mere accusation.

Trayvon being dead is a tragedy - and we will never fully know what happened in detail. But it is reasonable to say that given his past, he contributed to the circumstances that got him killed. Just as Zimmerman did as well.


Actually school suspensions have little relevance to anyone they do not even ask you such information upon joining the military expulsion would be a concern because then you committed a huge violation and I do not recall ever being asked if I was expelled when I joined the military either.O the other hand the military does want to know if you where ever regardless of the end result many jobs take this into consideration as well as it can easily be found out what your arrest record is.

Zimmerman went through a first time offenders program which means he got lucky had he a previous he would have been convicted more than likely for the battery on a cop.Which to me his past implies that he might have a wee bit of a self control issue one ding being the battery on the LE and the next being someone placing a restraining order against him this implies Zimmerman has two dings in his past.That does not mean that is guilty but it does imply that he may be a bit violent under certain situations and the fact that one of these acts was against a police officer shows that he has or has had no restraint in the past even against a person clearly having authority.

[August]

News: Forensics expert claims screams for help on 911 call not Zimmermans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/screams-on-911-call-not-zimmermans-forensic-expert-says/2012/04/01/gIQAGHNupS_story.html

It sure does seem that his defense is developing some holes...

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually school suspensions have little relevance to anyone they do not even ask you such information upon joining the military expulsion would be a concern because then you committed a huge violation and I do not recall ever being asked if I was expelled when I joined the military either.O the other hand the military does want to know if you where ever regardless of the end result many jobs take this into consideration as well as it can easily be found out what your arrest record is.

Zimmerman went through a first time offenders program which means he got lucky had he a previous he would have been convicted more than likely for the battery on a cop.Which to me his past implies that he might have a wee bit of a self control issue one ding being the battery on the LE and the next being someone placing a restraining order against him this implies Zimmerman has two dings in his past.That does not mean that is guilty but it does imply that he may be a bit violent under certain situations and the fact that one of these acts was against a police officer shows that he has or has had no restraint in the past even against a person clearly having authority.

Steelhead - the case on assaulting an LE was at the least weak. He was not convicted, he did not plead out. He was offered a diversion program that would drop the charges against him. Instead of having to mount an expensive courtoom defense, he accepted. This happens all the time - to people of all races and backgrounds. There was no pleading of guilty, nor any legal conviction or admission of wrongdoing. Yet your acting as if he was guilty.

On the Restraining Order - that was a one year order - but it not only named him - it named his ex girlfriend as well. So does that mean she must be "guilty" of domestic violence too, since she was accused of the same? Of course - no charges ever filed.....

The reality is that the facts do show this guy was "out of control" in his wannabe angst. Yes, it also shows at the least that he had demonstrated questionable judgement in the past.

That still doesn't make him solely responsible for the outcome. Had Martin just kept on walking instead of turning to confront his follower, had he not gotten on top of Zimmerman after knocking him down, etc - he might be alive today. I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent. My posts throughout this have been a call to hold him responsible. But to claim he has "a record" is stating that he has committed criminal offenses for which he has been deemed guilty. That is a false claim.

I do think he should be behind bars. But sacrificing the premise of how our judicial system is supposed to work because of this one individual, or intentionally misrepresenting his background does a disservice to us all.

[Tribesman]

He was offered a diversion program that would drop the charges against him. Instead of having to mount an expensive courtoom defense, he accepted. This happens all the time - to people of all races and backgrounds. There was no pleading of guilty, nor any legal conviction or admission of wrongdoing. Yet your acting as if he was guilty.

So Zimmerman took a course of action which avoided a day in court and a definate legal finding...so you are saying in his defence that he is like Michael Jackson then.

[Aviv]

Wow the 911 tape is really quite chilling.. I will be following this story because I think it's a very difficult and interesting one.

I was a reserve soldier for two years after my national service and I had a weapon license and I was also on the security committee for our residential block for that time. One thing we were thought is that in any suspected burglary, "No property is worth a life": It is not worth getting killed or killing someone over no matter what kind of object.

I think the first mistake Zimmerman made was he didn't identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch straight away. As has been said, Martin didn't know who was this guy in the truck talking on his cell phone, and this is why he ran. If Zimmerman had just stopped him, explaining he's the watchman and to make sure everything is good with Martin, he could just let him carry on with walking back to his Father's girlfriend's house. Even in Zimmerman's testimony he does not say he ever identified himself as a watchman.

Zimmerman should not have taken his gun with him. Firstly, in principle; he doesn't know if Martin is armed or what, and drawing a gun on him would give Martin a great reason to panic. Secondly, because it is not his place to use it in this situation; the police are already called and are on their way. Zimmerman does not need to be as the policeman here.

I think Martin's school suspension is irrelevant. It's not for anything violent (Zimmerman's was) and it's really rather small and not important. Everyone does crazy stuff at school (I will save my school stories for another time.)

This is all I can add to the discussion. I don't know what went through either of those men's heads to make one shoot the other, and we might never know.

[CaptainHaplo]

I think Martin's school suspension is irrelevant. It's not for anything violent (Zimmerman's was) and it's really rather small and not important. Everyone does crazy stuff at school (I will save my school stories for another time.)

So being suspended 3 times in one year - once for drugs (baggie with MJ residue and a pipe), once for consistent tardiness and absenteism (wonder where he was when he was supposed to be in school) and once for vandalism (grafitti) and possession of burlglary tools (along with some items that were possiblye stolen) is totally irrelevant. 2 of those suspensions were for activities related to gangs - and no one knows where sweet, little innocent Martin was on the occasions that cause the other suspension. Probably sunday school, right? I mean, if ya read his twitter - he sure comes off like a sweet young boy headed in the right direction, huh? :damn:

You want to hold past accusations against Zimmerman, but you want to dismiss multiple points of proven wrongdoing and a propensity by Martin to display himself as "thug" and "street". Its a double standard.

I am not arguing that Zimmerman is justified - I think negligent homicide is a warranted charge. But what is factually known about Martin makes a scene in which he approached Zimmerman and started the physical altercation entirely plausible and reasonable. That doesn't let Z off the hook by any means (his actions contributed way too much), but people that want to ignore the bad on BOTH sides are trying to make this into a purely racially motivated hunt down of a innocent little black boy. The facts don't add up to that.

If that was the intent, Z would have stalked him, never called the police, ambushed him, taken a punch and then killed the kid. After which he would have called the cops and claimed self defense - possibly even an attempted robbery if M had a weapon of some kind. That didn't happen - but from the take some people have - you would think it did.

A young man lost his life, and Z needs to be held accountable for how his actions ended up with that outcome. But trying to twist it into something it isn't, a pure racial killing, is wrong. Especially when there are plenty of black on white racially motivated crimes, but there is no coverage of those real hate crimes.

I guess when the racebaiters of the left have nothing else they can point to in trying to save Obama, they have to gin up what they can. Even if it is against a hispanic minority that they try and paint as "white".

Z should be in jail, M should not be dead. Putting on blinders out of emotion or political cause won't help us all heal the divisions of this country.....

[Aviv]

Actually, to counter my other post, I have read that Martin had gold teeth and tattoos and these reasons for being suspended in school (the burglary tool was a screwdriver). So yeah maybe this guy is a "small thug". Also he looks like he is really very tall, when Zimmerman is 175cm, so there would be less reason to Zimmerman to start a fight.

I think that maybe Martin got upset that this guy was following him, and maybe attacked Zimmerman. I don't think those shouts for help are Zimmerman's though, they don't sound like his voice and also, just before he is shot you can hear a very desperate scream like "no!" like if he sees the gun at that moment. So really I am confused and I don't know.

[Tribesman]

I guess when the racebaiters of the left have nothing else they can point to in trying to save Obama, they have to gin up what they can. Even if it is against a hispanic minority that they try and paint as "white".

:doh:Looks like the people with a race issue here are those who still cant get it into their thick skulls that zimmerman is white.
Though with that post it suggests mr "christian" may have a problem with his presidents skin colour too.

If you have a problem with zimmerman being white Haplo then find yourself some political representative that will rewrite your countries definitions of how pale someone has to be to make you happy to call them white.
I think you will find your local candidates of that flavour are a "christian" group who like wearing hoodies with their robes.

[RickC Sniper]

News: Forensics expert claims screams for help on 911 call not Zimmermans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/screams-on-911-call-not-zimmermans-forensic-expert-says/2012/04/01/gIQAGHNupS_story.html

It sure does seem that his defense is developing some holes...

Would this be allowed as evidence if charges were made? I thought earlier it was said that the 911 tapes were too poor quality to do this kind of test.

[Sailor Steve]

:doh:Looks like the people with a race issue here are those who still cant get it into their thick skulls that zimmerman is white.
Here in the US when you fill out a questionaire that includes race or "ethnicity" they have separate boxes for "White" and "Hispanic". The reason is that here most "Hispanics" are from Mexico, Cuba or South America, all of whom have mixed Spanish and Native blood, sometimes called "Indio", and are usually darker than "White". Sometimes they are referred to as "Brown". None of this really matters, but there is some justification to Haplo's distinction.

[August]

Would this be allowed as evidence if charges were made? I thought earlier it was said that the 911 tapes were too poor quality to do this kind of test.

That's what I thought as well but now I wonder who was saying that the quality was too poor? The same people who didn't think Zimmerman shouldn't be charged?

[Tribesman]

Here in the US when you fill out a questionaire that includes race or "ethnicity" they have separate boxes for "White" and "Hispanic". The reason is that here most "Hispanics" are from Mexico, Cuba or South America, all of whom have mixed Spanish and Native blood, sometimes called "Indio", and are usually darker than "White". Sometimes they are referred to as "Brown".
Not on your census so not in your country, Hispanic is now under either white or non white and is a matter of self identification.
So does George self identify more with the heritage of Robert or with Gladys(very native names)
BTW do you want to think again about your comment there as you are making a very big error on South America. Surely as you are pretty much in central station you are aware of Mittens south of the border heritage.

None of this really matters, but there is some justification to Haplo's distinction.
It matters for those who have a problem with darker people being called white, just like it was a problem for some when Indians, Jews and Arabs are called Caucasian.

As for what matters, lets see how the synapses are snapping with you today.
At the heart of this issue, which peoples possible racism is that which needs to be investigated over that evenings events?

[Sailor Steve]

1) My comments were based on American perceptions, not necessarily actual identities.

2) Is it possible for you to discuss things without crapping all over everyone who disagrees? I think I'm done trying to defend you, and done talking to you as well.
As for what matters, lets see how the synapses are snapping with you today.

[Tribesman]

1) My comments were based on American perceptions, not necessarily actual identities.

perceptions can be very skewed. American perceptions especially ingrained ones may be at the very root of this issue.
Not that it is an American thing as Britains Met have just shot themselves in the foot again with it.

Is it possible for you to discuss things without crapping all over everyone who disagrees? I think I'm done trying to defend you, and done talking to you as well.

How on earth is that crapping on people?
Are you having one of your moments again?

As for what matters, lets see how the synapses are snapping with you today.
Simple statement leading to the central question at the core of the whole issue.
If you think that is crapping on you then your synapses are not snapping at all or your perception is skewed beryond belief.

[Aramike]

I stopped reading there. I cannot have a discussion with someone who actually believes and will try to argue that being suspended from school is actually worse than being arrested. Hoo boy. :rotfl2:I don't think that's fair, mookie. My first reaction was similar to yours, but then I thought about it.

People are arrested for many things. If someone is arrested merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then exonorated and released, they did NOTHING wrong.

Someone suspended from school can't say the same thing, generally.

[RickC Sniper]

The same people who didn't think Zimmerman shouldn't be charged?


I believe those were the ones, yes, who decided not have the recordings analyzed after listening to them.

Cannot find the reference anymore.

Interesting that in your cited article a newspaper sent them to be analyzed but no investigators.

[Stealhead]

I don't think that's fair, mookie. My first reaction was similar to yours, but then I thought about it.

People are arrested for many things. If someone is arrested merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then exonorated and released, they did NOTHING wrong.

Someone suspended from school can't say the same thing, generally.

Your example does not apply to Zimmerman he went though a first time offenders program which means that he and his lawyer must have very strongly felt that he would have been convicted on the battery charge therefore they went the first time offender route which does still count in a court because if ever you get arrested again for any serious charge you do not get the kid gloves next time and the judge will also consider the fact that it appears the person learned nothing form there previous court room appearance.

Battery on a law enforcement officer does not sound like being at the wrong place at the wrong time it means that a person was at the wrong place at the wrong time and also made a very poor choice.It is not like the Dr.John song.

Not everyone is a perfect person but past history alone does not mean one or the other is guilty.But in the case of these two one has a traceable past of making poor choices and having encounters with the law the other has had encounters with school administration(who has the power to get LE involved if deemed necessary)

What happens then when two people with a criminal record have an encounter and one dies do you simply say"this guy has a worse looking record than the other one so that makes him guilty because the other man went through first time offenders and only has one incident." but Sgt.Smith the first time offender guy his arrest was for a violent crime the other guy has only been busted for possession never anything violent, Corporal when will you learn more arrests always mean that he got what was coming to him." "What part of the state statues is that law in Sgt? "The one that I made up."

[Aramike]

Your example does not apply to Zimmerman...I wasn't referring to Zimmerman, I was referring to the point itself.

[Stealhead]

Well if your point was that if a person has gone though a first time offenders program and that has no relevance upon their record then I highly disagree with you.They made a mistake and they went through a form of punishment (that only around as a way to save prison space to be frankly honest)It does show up on your record if you went through a first time offender program then you did admit guilt in effect you just got kid gloves treatment but you where kept track off and in many places those first time offenders are very lax. Regardless it does still show up on your record and it should people have the right to know.

Again past alone should not mean guilt or innocence but it most certainly is a factor to consider.

[Sailor Steve]

perceptions can be very skewed. American perceptions especially ingrained ones may be at the very root of this issue.
Not that it is an American thing as Britains Met have just shot themselves in the foot again with it.
I realize perceptions can be skewed. I was merely referring to the fact that perceptions can make us see things certain ways, and those ways can be valid based on where they come from. By our standards Zimmerman can be considered white or not, not that it should matter, but I don't see faulting people for that perception to be a fair arguement.

How on earth is that crapping on people?
It is if you're insulting someone's intelligence directly. It's not if you're making an obscure literary reference, which from your PM you were.

Are you having one of your moments again?
Apparently so. :oops:

I apologized in private and now am apologizing publically.
(Larger font so it doesn't get lost in the text.)

Just in case anyone else missed it, as I did, Tribesman was making a reference to Agatha Christie.

...your synapses are not snapping at all or your perception is skewed beryond belief.
Both are possibly true. Maybe it's age. Maybe it's my innate insanity shining through.

[CaptainHaplo]

Again past alone should not mean guilt or innocence but it most certainly is a factor to consider.


Agreed - but why should one past be irrelevant while the other is not? Its a double standard, and that is what I am against.

Both of these people had past "issues'. Neither had a criminal conviction. Both acted in ways that night that resulted in the outcome. One is dead - he has paid the ultimate price for his actions. The other - should be held to account. Period.

[Stealhead]

See this is where I have a problem with what you say you do not have the evidence at hand nor does anyone else on this case and it has not been put on display in a court of law to be judged so you can not say that one paid the price.You are making a call on no solid information and assuming guilt where none can be proven.To say with out doubt that Zimmerman was right or wrong or that Martin was in the wrong when you can not know how the investigation is going or what they know you can simply not say.

And you keep harping on the no conviction rubbish when in fact Zimmerman does have blemish on his record you are trying to say that he is just like you(I assume that you have never been convicted of a crime or in a first time offenders programs) or me who have never been in trouble that is simply incorrect and for any job that requires a national security check they do see all of your record even your one FTO program they will see it know what you did and will more than likely not hire you in the military you may be bared form entry(right now they are blocking even those with DUIs) and you will never ever get any security clearance.

Such a thing alone does not imply guilt but it does show that in the last decade the man did commit battery on a LE officer which should be alarming to anyone it should at least get ones attention.What FTO should do is give someone a chance but it should still show up fully and not partly but at least it shows up where it counts and Zimmerman will never get a job as a LE officer anywhere because no cop is going to hire someone that got charged (note the italics because to go through FTO your butt got charged with a felony) with battery on an LE and then went through FTO program that is a no hire and it should be it would be a no hire for any person having gone through FTO.

Also Zimmerman can had no way to know that Martin had been suspended a few times and that really dose not matter very much either I know guys that got several suspensions in high school and they never got into any serious trouble in adult life some I know a guy that never got into trouble in school that got locked up because he robbed a bar a month after graduating his clean school record was a sign of nothing.

[CaptainHaplo]

See this is where I have a problem with what you say you do not have the evidence at hand nor does anyone else on this case and it has not been put on display in a court of law to be judged so you can not say that one paid the price.You are making a call on no solid information and assuming guilt where none can be proven.To say with out doubt that Zimmerman was right or wrong or that Martin was in the wrong when you can not know how the investigation is going or what they know you can simply not say..

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.

[Tribesman]

I apologized in private and now am apologizing publically.

Not needed:salute:

By our standards Zimmerman can be considered white or not, not that it should matter, but I don't see faulting people for that perception to be a fair arguement.

For the perception to be anywhere above the faultline it must be able to show some sort of definition which applies and works, caucasian was tried and failed, european heritage was tried and failed, hispanic was tried and failed. The only one left which could be used was shade of the skin which speaks for itself.



@Stealhead
Battery on a law enforcement officer does not sound like being at the wrong place at the wrong time it means that a person was at the wrong place at the wrong time and also made a very poor choice.
Maybe, maybe not.
It would depend on the integrity of the police officer/s involved which unfortunately can never be a given.
Which indeed comes back to the actual issue of this topic.

[August]

And more updates to the story:

NBC apparently doctored the 911 tape recording of the shooting to make Zimmerman look like a racist:

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:


Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”


http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-02/politics/31274234_1_dispatcher-facts-public-discussion


Deliberate or a mistake? You decide.

Also:

Enhanced police station video shows what appears to be wounds on the back of Zimmermans head.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57408577-504083/enhanced-video-shows-apparent-injury-on-george-zimmermans-head-police-say/

[Stealhead]

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.


Well I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning I just hear(in person and in certain media outlets)the line he paid for his mistakes to mean he got what he deserved you seem not to be meaning this.Sorry if I misread your meaning but I have many things to keep up with in life nobody is perfect.The tone of your recent posts seem to have the same meaning as the "he(Martin) got what he deserved" types I have heard else where.Now you say that you do not feel this way.Also there is conflicting witness statements as to whom was on top of whom if two people are in a fight one being on top of the other does not alone imply right or wrong either way.What a person got attacked and then reacted in self defense and wound up on top of the person attacking them if the attacker does not cease there actions then the defender would be well within their rights to on top which in a scuffle on the ground is the best way to gain control.The information on the scuffle between Martin and Zimmerman is too sketchy.This is why it seems clear that we agree that Zimmerman is accountable for something or at least needs to prove his claims before a court of law.

@ August We all know that an attacker can suffer injuries and get their clothing dirty just as much as a victim/defender can so the fact that both have injuries alone shine no light on who was right or wrong.This entire story has become a circus with different media outlets and internet sites spreading their own version of the story which makes me trust nothing that comes out on this story unless it comes from the mouth of those involved in investigation word for word beyond that it is a wild goose chase.(that might be what you are thinking as well as you have posted links to updates from various sources with differing views)

[Bubblehead1980]

Martin paid with his life - that seems pretty clear to all involved, no?
Or would you dispute that?

The question is - paid for "what" exactly.

What is known is that Martin was a 6'3" football player. Zimmerman is 5'7" and no reliable listing for his weight. So what is known is that Zimmerman ran after Martin for about 2 minutes, was all huffy and puffy out of breath, and somehow ended up - per witness statements - underneath the 6'3 guy. In the process, his nose got whacked and he hit the back of his head on the sidewalk. This from the report witnesses at the scene - oh and of the cops who WANTED to charge him with negligent homicide....

Martin was roughly 70 feet from the building where he was staying. He chose to turn and - if not start - take part in a confrontation. That decision cost him his life. Had he just kept on walking and gotten shot, it would have been in the back and there would be no question on Zimmerman's total culpability. Instead he decided he was gonna pound on this short little dude who was messin with him. So yes - one bad decision cost him his life. I don't see why that is unclear.

On the other hand, Zimmerman made a LOT of wrong decisions that night. Whether he was truly in fear of his life or not, we have no way of knowing. Either way, the decisions he made led directly to the confrontation - which means he is culpable regardless.

In the end - Martin made one bad decision - no to keep on walking. Zimmerman made a lot of bad ones. Martin is dead. Zimmerman has to be held accountable.

No, he is not culpable as he did nothing illegal and nothing the constitutes provocation.Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.I will concede Zimmerman should have been more subtle but it did not given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.Zimmerman defended himself and is protected under stand your ground.The Police did not arrest him(may have wanted to but did not) because they did not have probable cause and the SAO declined for the same reason.The "special prosecutor" is looking into this and a Grand Jury will, if they follow the law they will also find the same, no cause for arrest.

Decisions have consequences, even unforeseen ones.Martin chose to attack and lost his life.Sad all around, but it boils down to individual responsibility.Zimmerman may have some moral culpability in the sense that had he been more subtle and not left his vehicle ever, the chain of events would most likely not have transpired.However, Zimmerman has no legal culpability here as I stated previously and anyone who looks at this objectively, removing emotion, race etc from the equation and just applies the law to this case,understands that as the Police and SAO did.

[August]

@ August We all know that an attacker can suffer injuries and get their clothing dirty just as much as a victim/defender can so the fact that both have injuries alone shine no light on who was right or wrong.This entire story has become a circus with different media outlets and internet sites spreading their own version of the story which makes me trust nothing that comes out on this story unless it comes from the mouth of those involved in investigation word for word beyond that it is a wild goose chase.(that might be what you are thinking as well as you have posted links to updates from various sources with differing views)

Yeah I haven't made up my mind yet on Zimmermans guilt. I figure to leave that decision to the jury if the case ever gets to that point.

What really worries me is that the media is whipping people up to a frenzy with deliberately false reporting. There may be riots and bloodshed on our streets this summer because of it. You got to admit that NBC's modification of the 911 tapes is pretty egregious.

[AVGWarhawk]

What really worries me is that the media is whipping people up to a frenzy with deliberately false reporting. There may be riots and bloodshed on our streets this summer because of it. You got to admit that NBC's modification of the 911 tapes is pretty egregious.

It is highly irresponsible for NBC to alter the tapes. The outfit should be on trial right after the Zimmerman case is closed. The news is absolutely disgusting and self-serving.

[CaptainHaplo]

No, he is not culpable as he did nothing illegal and nothing the constitutes provocation.Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.I will concede Zimmerman should have been more subtle but it did not given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.Zimmerman defended himself and is protected under stand your ground.The Police did not arrest him(may have wanted to but did not) because they did not have probable cause and the SAO declined for the same reason.The "special prosecutor" is looking into this and a Grand Jury will, if they follow the law they will also find the same, no cause for arrest.

Decisions have consequences, even unforeseen ones.Martin chose to attack and lost his life.Sad all around, but it boils down to individual responsibility.Zimmerman may have some moral culpability in the sense that had he been more subtle and not left his vehicle ever, the chain of events would most likely not have transpired.However, Zimmerman has no legal culpability here as I stated previously and anyone who looks at this objectively, removing emotion, race etc from the equation and just applies the law to this case,understands that as the Police and SAO did.

Bubblehead - we don't know who started the altercation. IF Zimmerman did, then he is culpable since that removes his "stand your ground" defense. Even if Martin DID start the fight, Zimmerman should not have been in that spot to start with. The moment he exited his vehicle to PURSUE a "suspect" - he was no longer "standing ground" - he was ADVANCING. While the shooting may have been justified in the context of the MOMENT - meaning Z in fear for his life during the altercation, his actions and decisions contributed substantially to the situation, were negligent, and resulted in the death of another person. Thus, negligent homocide / negligent manslaughter is an appropriate outcome - and I will get a quarter that is what happens.

[Platapus]

You got to admit that NBC's modification of the 911 tapes is pretty egregious.

This reminds me of what happened at the OJ Simpson murder trial. Some news media darkened OJ's picture to make him "more black" while others lightened up his image.

As soon as news became profit making entertainment is when I lost any faith and respect for the news media. Their job is to report the news, not make it. :nope:

[vienna]

This reminds me of what happened at the OJ Simpson murder trial. Some news media darkened OJ's picture to make him "more black" while others lightened up his image.

As soon as news became profit making entertainment is when I lost any faith and respect for the news media. Their job is to report the news, not make it. :nope:


Not all the blame can be put at the feet of the media, especially in high profile arrests or trials. A lot of lawyers or backers of a defendant will engage media representatives to act on behalf of the accused in order to "spin" the public perception of a case. This became a practice about the same time "jury consultants" came into vogue. Citing the O.J. case, I recall how a very public trip to the predominantly Black South Central Los Angeles district was arranged by the O.J. defense team in order to bolster his support in the Black community. This was soley arranged bythe defense but heavily covered by the local media. The fact that O.J. had not been to any Black district anywhere in the U.S. for decades was never allowed to be brought up by Johnny Cochran and the rest of the dream team. So, O.J. had his soul food, shook a few hands, and left. I have yet to hear of O.J. returning to or visiting South Central L.A. any other Black enclave. Yes, I know he is currently in prison [where he belongs], but, prior to that and I can safely assume afterwards, he will not be seen chowing down on chicken and waffles at Roscoe's...

This is one reason why I take the trotting out of friends and neighbors to say how good and kindly Zimmerman (or any other questionable individual) is/was with more than a few grains of salt. Just think of those cases where someone goes off and kills their family or is found to be a mass murder or some such thing; there's always the neighbors saying "well, he seemed to be a nice, quiet person, always kept his lawn and hedges trimmed..."

...

[AVGWarhawk]

News has become nothing more than entertainment. The news agencies understand this and manipulate the new to provide entertainment.

The news=WWF "pro" wrestling. For entertainment value only....Junkyard Dog could be the anchorman. Hulk Hogan handles weather. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Just think of those cases where someone goes off and kills their family or is found to be a mass murder or some such thing; there's always the neighbors saying "well, he seemed to be a nice, quiet person, always kept his lawn and hedges trimmed..."

...

Yes, John Gasy.

[Stealhead]

Not all the blame can be put at the feet of the media, especially in high profile arrests or trials. A lot of lawyers or backers of a defendant will engage media representatives to act on behalf of the accused in order to "spin" the public perception of a case. This became a practice about the same time "jury consultants" came into vogue. Citing the O.J. case, I recall how a very public trip to the predominantly Black South Central Los Angeles district was arranged by the O.J. defense team in order to bolster his support in the Black community. This was soley arranged bythe defense but heavily covered by the local media. The fact that O.J. had not been to any Black district anywhere in the U.S. for decades was never allowed to be brought up by Johnny Cochran and the rest of the dream team. So, O.J. had his soul food, shook a few hands, and left. I have yet to hear of O.J. returning to or visiting South Central L.A. any other Black enclave. Yes, I know he is currently in prison [where he belongs], but, prior to that and I can safely assume afterwards, he will not be seen chowing down on chicken and waffles at Roscoe's...

This is one reason why I take the trotting out of friends and neighbors to say how good and kindly Zimmerman (or any other questionable individual) is/was with more than a few grains of salt. Just think of those cases where someone goes off and kills their family or is found to be a mass murder or some such thing; there's always the neighbors saying "well, he seemed to be a nice, quiet person, always kept his lawn and hedges trimmed..."

...

You know I have yet to met a single black person where the topic of OJ Simpson come up ever say that they felt he was innocent.I can not speak for every black person out there but I have known many in my time in the military and in working life of varying political views and not one feels that OJ was an innocent man prior to his trail or after of course they likely do not fall for the race card either.I find it funny that Jesse Jackson does as he does having worked with Martin Luther King because he counters Kings vision King felt that all people should be equal Jackson obviously has favor for his own kind over others.

I do agree that such things are tactics indeed but often they preach to the those already convinced I think with OJ they got the side of the people (not just blacks) that think that blacks are always in some ways victims.The same tactics used with OJ are being used by both sides in this case though.

[vienna]

You know I have yet to met a single black person where the topic of OJ Simpson come up ever say that they felt he was innocent.I can not speak for black person out there but I have known many in my time in the military and in working life of varying political views and not one feels that OJ was an innocent man prior to his trail or after.

I do agree that such things are tactics indeed but often they preach to the those already convinced I think with OJ they got the side of the people (not just blacks) that think that blacks are always in some ways victims.The same tactics used with OJ are being used by both sides in this case though.


I was here in Los Angeles during the whole O.J. affair (and, BTW, the whole Rodney King/L.A. Riots) and the take was a bit different here. The Local media was being fed a steady string of pro-O.J. hacks who seemed to be everywhere, ready to shout down any Black person who ventured to opine O.J. was guilty. But the main portion of the Black community in L.A. was as you experienced in (I'm guessing) Florida at the time. It just wasn't "politically correct" to voice "O.J. is guilty". But most knew he was and I, too heard many who felt that way. The interesting factor was the feeling O.J. somehow won a moral victory because he had fought off "The Man". Guilt wasn't the issue; it was "finally a blck guy beat the system in court, just like the white do all the time"...

A Black co-worker of mine at the time said it best: "O.J. isn't 'innocent' or 'not guilty', he's just one more rich guy, no matter what color, able to buy his way out of taking resposibility for his actions"...

An interesting side note to the whole O.J. matter: at the time of the reading of the verdict for his civil wrongful death suit over the murders of his wife and her friend, the city authorities, still mindful of the Rodney King riots in 1992, went into riot mode and even brought in units of the National Guard. Store owners were advised to board up their windows and some businesses (mine included) sent their employees home early to beat the official reading of the verdict. When the verdict of "Guilty" was read, the Black community just went "Meh..." and nothing happened...

I se that you list your location as Florida.; hopefully, if this ever gets to trial, you won't have the experience we had here after the Rodney King trial. Hopefully, calmer heads will pervail and everything will be "Meh..."...

...

[Aramike]

Well if your point was that if a person has gone though a first time offenders program and that has no relevance upon their record then I highly disagree with you.They made a mistake and they went through a form of punishment (that only around as a way to save prison space to be frankly honest)It does show up on your record if you went through a first time offender program then you did admit guilt in effect you just got kid gloves treatment but you where kept track off and in many places those first time offenders are very lax. Regardless it does still show up on your record and it should people have the right to know.

Again past alone should not mean guilt or innocence but it most certainly is a factor to consider.That was not my point, I thought it was pretty clear.

[Tribesman]

Diluvian, you do realise that wingnut idiot Michelle Malkin already had to apologise for putting up that very silly picture don't you?:doh:

[mookiemookie]

crap

And even if that were Trayvon Martin, which it isn't, aren't you engaging in the very same thing that you're whining about the media doing? Using a picture to whitewash "your side" and push an agenda?

[gimpy117]

honestly I don't know anymore. Personally I think this kid should have had his butt kicked, but not shot.

but this case has degenerated to a case of appearances, often people trying to paint one as a thug and another a trigger happy white guy.

here's what I think:

-Zimmerman: should not have been carrying a gun; and fancied himself a Cop. Puts himself in a bad position when "playing officer" even when told not to do so by the real po-po. Unfortunately when Travonn was playing "make believe gangster" substituting a tec-9 for a bag of skittles and tea, Zimmerman had a real gun. However he should have not even been there to shoot him in the first place, and Florida's laws are letting him off

-Trayvonn (or however it's spelled): a 17 year old who was desperate to look "thug" and be considered cool in the eyes of his peers. These people seem to act tough in front of all to seem this way; even when it's a lie. I wouldn't be surprised if he did confront Zimmerman and fought him....it's kind of the "street code" nonsense (the kind of idea that fuels drive by's when somebody talks crap). But I don't think Travonn was a thug...if he was he would have had a real gun. He was just playing make believe

really I think it's a case of two posers getting together and having a fight. One guy want's to be the boys in blue, the other a gang member. and we all know what happens there.

[Sailor Steve]

Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.
You speak as though this is an established fact. I'm curious as to how you know this to be the truth.

[CaptainHaplo]

You speak as though this is an established fact. I'm curious as to how you know this to be the truth.

Its not established fact. If T did attack Z, then the stand your ground only covers him in the shooting moment IF he was in fear of his life. However, it still would not absolve Z of the negligent and reckless actions he made that resulted in the conflict - thus negligent homicide or at least reckless endangerment ending in manslaughter.

If T did not attack Z, then Z is culpable for assualt, assualt with a deadly weapon, murder, reckless endangerment, etc.

However, Z has a few things in his favor. One is that eyewitness testimony indicates he did not start the fight. How reliable that is, remains to be seen. The second is that there is no one alive that DISPUTES that T started the fight.

Legally speaking - that second one is a hard thing for a prosecutor to overcome. The only people who can speak to it, don't say T was walking away and Z assaulted him. Thus, you won't see a murder charge stick, probably not even filed.

I said it before and I will say it again - Negligent homicide / reckless endangerment that ended in death / manslaughter. That will stick.

A DA who reaches will lose - and let a man who should be in prison, off scott free. I don't want to see that.

[Sailor Steve]

Its not established fact.
Did you miss the point where I was addressing a specific individual? He has a habit of posting in this forum as if he were the final authority. All I'm trying to do is show him the error of his ways, and I'm trying to be better about it than I've been in the past, as we've been having some good conversation on other forums.

I know that nothing is cut-and-dried, and I've said so more than once. My comment had nothing to do with the incident in question.

[CaptainHaplo]

Did you miss the point where I was addressing a specific individual? He has a habit of posting in this forum as if he were the final authority. All I'm trying to do is show him the error of his ways, and I'm trying to be better about it than I've been in the past, as we've been having some good conversation on other forums.

I know that nothing is cut-and-dried, and I've said so more than once. My comment had nothing to do with the incident in question.

Yes I saw you were addressing one individual. I was adding fact to the question - so he stood challenged to cross the facts. You left it kind of hanging as a question.... I guess I am just a bit more direct than that. Didn't mean to get ya riled.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not riled.

No, I'm not! :stare: :D

Actually I'm mostly staying out of this thread because sooner or later the truth will come out, and somone will bragging about how they are smarter than the ones who disagreed, not understandIng the logical concept of being "accidentally right". There are few things that annoy me more than people who are convinced they know the truth of a case when actually they know nothing of the kind.

[CaptainHaplo]

He has been charged with 2nd Degree Murder.

In other words, non-premeditated murder. Max life sentence.

No telling if the judge will allow for lesser charges to be considered by the jury.... If so he gets convicted of a lesser charge - if not - he gets off.

Reasonable doubt exists as to the circumstances - and his injuries, along with witness testimony, give credibility to who started the fight. Given that he was seen on the ground with Martin on top of him - there is "reasonable doubt" easily found to let him walk on self defence if the only choice is murder 2.

I strongly hope that the judge allows lesser charges be considered as well.

[Platapus]

This is good news. This is why we have courts -- to determine, from a legal standpoint, what happened.

Thanks to the media the jury pool will be rather shallow. :damn:

[soopaman2]

This is good news. This is why we have courts -- to determine, from a legal standpoint, what happened.

Thanks to the media the jury pool will be rather shallow. :damn:

But without the media this would have been swept under the rug by daddy Judge, as was initially attempted. (Basis of a free media amendment, to prevent the well connected from victimizing the citizens)

That being said murder 2 is a bit over the top. I would go for a manslaughter 3 degree, as I do not think Zimmerman went into this wanting to kill him a colored boy.

Vigilantism should not be encouraged.

I am encouraged by the lack of hairtrigger "ban guns" comments that accompany stories like this in other forums. :yeah:

[Platapus]

In looking at the Florida Statutes both Manslaughter and Murder in the Third Degree (they are different in Florida) don't seem to apply. While at first I also thought that Murder in the Second Degree was too much, It does appear to be the appropriate charge. Florida's homicide crimes are not the same as in other states.

It will be an interesting trial if it ever gets to that point.

[soopaman2]

In looking at the Florida Statutes both Manslaughter and Murder in the Third Degree (they are different in Florida) don't seem to apply. While at first I also thought that Murder in the Second Degree was too much, It does appear to be the appropriate charge. Florida's homicide crimes are not the same as in other states.

It will be an interesting trial if it ever gets to that point.

After the Casey Anthony case I have zero faith in Florida. The fact that Zimmerman has been villainized may work out in his advantage. And the fact that Florida prosecuters are hairbrained, twitch reaction bumpkins will also work out in his favor. I hope they actually built a case this time.

Don't worry Trayvon haters, your pistolero-gun-hero will get off. This is Florida...:-?

The young adult deserves justice. (edit: But Zim deserves his day in court too)

[Ducimus]

You know, it occurs to me with all the hype and attention this is getting, (even here, 26, going on 27 pages), and in terms of attention and hype, I'm just going to start making comparisons to this:


http://www.autoloandaily.com/images/stories/oj%20white%20bronco.jpg

[August]

I'm just going to start making comparisons to this:


I've always said it was OJ's kid that done the deed. :yep:

[Bubblehead1980]

Ah, sad that this "special prosecutor" appointed to appease the ignorant masses, made the political decision instead of following the law.Now a man has been arrested without cause under the law. I have faith he will be cleared but under Florida law, he should not have been arrested at all.Really is a travesty that they bowed to the ignorance of Sharpton, Jackson etc etc.

[Sailor Steve]

There it is again: "I'm right and you're stupid." No discussion, no analysis, just opinion presented as fact.

[mookiemookie]

There it is again: "I'm right and you're stupid." No discussion, no analysis, just opinion presented as fact.

Why bother? Some people are too far gone to try and talk sense to.

[Bubblehead1980]

There it is again: "I'm right and you're stupid." No discussion, no analysis, just opinion presented as fact.


Because it is a simple case under Florida Law, there is no cause for an arrest, which is why the Police(even thought one Detective wanted to arrest him) did not arrest him, they followed the LAW not their feelings.The SAO did not arrest him for the same reason.Now, after the ignorant ones got involved, screamed for a month etc A "special prosecutor" ignores the law and charges Zimmerman with second degree murder?? This lady did not take the case to the Grand Jury because she knew they would not indict him based on the evidence, because it supports Zimmerman.

Facts that have come to light supported by evidence:

Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, they told him to no longer follow Trayvon.Zimmerman says he turned around, and his behavior on the phone matches this story, as he talked to the dispatcher for over another minute and said he wanted to meet with the Police.This is consistent with Zimmerman walking back to his car as said, not pursuing Trayvon. Zimmerman did nothing that could be considered provocation.Moments after hanging up the phone, Zimmerman says Trayvon confronted him and attacked him.A witness saw this, called 911 and that is when the gunshot was heard during this call.The witness stated that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him.There are screams that are most likely Zimmerman as it is doubtful Trayvon was screaming for help while he is on top beating someone and slamming their head into the pavement.Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman, one time.

Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and head injuries to the back of his head.Police report stated he had grass stains on his clothing.Between the physical evidence, and witness statement, Zimmerman's version is the truth of what happened.Make much more sense than the spin the media tried and some are still trying to put on this.

Now, no one being honest could say Zimmerman was not covered under stand your ground, clear cut case of self defense.This special prosecutor however is your typical self righteous prosecutor who thinks she is on some moral crusade, she forgets her job is to find the truth and uphold the law.I say this because she has a reputation in Florida not as a great lawyer, but more as a zealot.I read a statement of hers in some article where she says she only cares about the "victims", meaning to hell with the law and the rights of others, just those labeled the "victims", reminds me of Janet Reno in some ways as it turns out she put quite a few innocent people in jail who were later cleared.

The law protects Zimmerman but now this "SP" has allowed politics to enter into her decision and is abusing her power.Kind of like the casey anthony case, they sensed an easy win and went right for the throat with a 1st degree murder charge based on crappy evidence, politics influencing their decisions instead of rationality and the law.I believe it will work out for Zimmerman, but the travesty is he should not even have been arrested.Really a shame the ignorant masses can spur the government into action when its not needed.:damn:

[Ghostturd]

...

[Sailor Steve]

Really a shame the ignorant masses can spur the government into action when its not needed.:damn:
And it's comments like that which get you laughed at. You may well be right; I don't know. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's. The problem is your absolute conviction. It's not the fault of "the ignorant masses". When you use words like that you set yourself up as better than the rest of us, and it's obvious from your posting habits that you're less thoughtful and analytical than most. That's the problem I continue to have with you. As I said, you never discuss, or even debate. You preach, as if your words are the final authority.

[Takeda Shingen]

Don't get me started on the ignorant masses. I have to read their posts every day; with the same old one side against the other and the predictable knee-jerk responses all while pumping themselves up to be the ultimate authority on all matters while they demean and brow-beat anyone who has the audacity to disagree.

[soopaman2]

In an above post I stated vigilantism should not be encouraged.

Just to be clear I mean it on both sides.

My cousin made a point to me that alot of this reminds him of accused murderer in an old Wild West town, and how lynch mobs would hang the accused before a fair trial.

The blacks need to seriously calm down. (just saying)

This is not a case of racism, but a case of vigilante justice. A gun hero, who should not have a gun, and a dead kid with race on his side.

2 white guys in Arkansas and no one would give a hoot. 2 black guys in Detroit or South Central LA and no one would care. 2 Mexicans in East LA, same thing, who cares?

The only reason I consider Zimmerman wrong is because he pursued the conflict. He was the cause, to the sad effect.

But there is a such thing as justice, and an established law system, and my above statement is simply my moral opinion.

[Sailor Steve]

Well said, Soops. I personally think the prosecution should have gone for manslaughter, only because it seems more in line with what happened.

It was an interesting development of the trial of the cops who beat Rodney King. The prosecution tried for what amounted to attempted murder, and all the defense had to show was that they weren't actually trying to kill him, which was obvious from the start. If the prosecutor had tried them for something like abuse of power he might have made it stick. My friends and I joked at the time that maybe that was the plan - make a case they couldn't win.

Could something similar be going on here?

[vienna]

It was an interesting development of the trial of the cops who beat Rodney King. The prosecution tried for what amounted to attempted murder, and all the defense had to show was that they weren't actually trying to kill him, which was obvious from the start. If the prosecutor had tried them for something like abuse of power he might have made it stick. My friends and I joked at the time that maybe that was the plan - make a case they couldn't win.


That plus the trial venue was moved from the normal downtown Los Angeles Criminal Courts Building (where there would have been a rather more diverse jury pool) to a courthose in a farther away suburb (where the jury pool was rather more 'homogenous'). The factor you cited above plus the impression of a 'rigged' jury did an awful lot to stoke the anger of the Black community specifically and the general public...

...

[Tribesman]

Nor am I an apologist, Sorry is an emotion in my book, either you are or you arent. saying it wont make it so.....so if that's what you wanted you should start building that bridge, cause you'll have to get over it.
The only apologies you need are by yourself to yourself, after all it was you who allowed yourself to be played for a sucker long after the truth of that fake photo was well publicised.
Perhaps you should stay current with televised opinionists if you choose to repeat their crap.
You really do need to have a good word with yourself and sort it out.

[Tribesman]

ha ha, get mad some more.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

I honestly was naive to the fact if its any consolation to you

Really? wow:rotfl2:

I pointed out your need to insult millions of americans
Was the statement about that individual accurate?

or the fact that they really are required to keep their material at a 6th grade level
Hey you just insulted millions of people, Americans and otherwise

its that simple.
You simply don't get it. Perhaps that is why you have gone off on one, have a word with yourself.

don't be talking **** and i wouldnt have any to point out.

Don't be posting fake pictures without checking, then people wouldn't ask if you knew they was fake and maybe you wouldn't go off on one over it

[Aramike]

Well said, Soops. I personally think the prosecution should have gone for manslaughter, only because it seems more in line with what happened.

It was an interesting development of the trial of the cops who beat Rodney King. The prosecution tried for what amounted to attempted murder, and all the defense had to show was that they weren't actually trying to kill him, which was obvious from the start. If the prosecutor had tried them for something like abuse of power he might have made it stick. My friends and I joked at the time that maybe that was the plan - make a case they couldn't win.

Could something similar be going on here?I try my best to avoid theories such as these on the grounds that we need some semblance of trust in our system of justice, but I wonder if you may be right.

In fact, I struggle more with the fact that I'm not sure that doing so wouldn't be the right thing to do. Certain segments of society presumed Zimmerman guilty and have implied that no less than a guilty verdict is acceptable, and have encouraged renegade behaviors when they felt they weren't getting their way.

As sad as it is that Martin's dead, I find the greater issue to be the blind eye our justice department turned to the overtures of groups such as the New Black Panthers. Remember the legal outcry over the pastor that planned on burning the Koran? Sure, I don't recall any formal charges being filed, but I do remember an outcry from government officials, and a justified one at that.

[Tribesman]

I don't find stupidity all that funny myself.

You really do need to have a word with yourself.

Yes its so shocking almost two weeks ago i was unaware the picture was fake.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Is it common for you to live in the past?

This is the present.

It's funny you think it bothers me
Wierd that, your touchiness on it in no way suggests it bothers you.

It's a blind defense on my behalf for them.

It's certainly blind.

and its proof you have pre meditated opinions that you attempt to rationalize.

wow:doh:

Hey, thats a fact,
No it isn't, there is no requirement, it is just their choice.

I admitted the picture was fake
Really? wow:rotfl2:

but because it was a non political picture
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:Unbel ievable
Is there any particular reason why you are so consistantly wide of the mark?

Its almost mandatory for me to point out a foreigners incompetence when he tries to talk **** on my fellow countrymen.

If it was mandatory perhaps you would be better able to do it.
As it happens you ain't doing very well at all.

is funny the irish invented the word foreigner for the british, and here you are being the epitome of its invention.
You really are having a bad day:haha:

its one thing to debate the moral implications of this case, but leave the politics out of it.

That is where you are hitting the problem with your cognitive functions.

I've got nothing more to add.
Apart from more comedy value you have added very little of any consequence.
You have though seemingly unwittingly pushed the very thing in the topic you are saying you wanted to avoid.

[mookiemookie]

You did more literal 'whining'. Asking a simple question is whining? Your comment smacks of "nuh-uh, YOU are!"

my 'Side' and 'Agenda' is only that the trial is fair. So you post made up pictures that show the big scary black thug doing big scary black thug things and the guy who shot him as a clean cut, suit wearing, smiling good 'Murican. Suuuuure, I believe you.

Pictures say a thousand words and that one definitely did under the premise that it was real. Knowing its fake it rubs off as more mundane banter than anything now. You mean now that it doesn't support your chosen side, let's move along and ignore it, nothing to see here, oh it's just mundane banter now!

And I wouldnt be abrasive about it, but your question is hypothetical and rhetorical. reading comprehension skills answer it in the last sentence of the picture. When all else fails, insult their "reading comprehension skills." :roll:

[Tribesman]

When all else fails, insult their "reading comprehension skills."
Hey be fair, he thinks the Irish for Saxon is derived from the Latin.
Or is he just firing blind again:yep:

I seriously think you're being this stupid on purpose.
You still can't understand that you are off on one.
You shot wide of the mark and are still banging away at your miss.

i've already linked this to a few debate forums.
You like showing yourself up then.

You're seriously an idiot.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Bloody hell, you really do need a serious word with yourself.

[Tribesman]

Hey diluvian, are you editing your posts to try and stop looking quite so out of it now that you are linking to your own writings?:rotfl2:

I posted the real picture of him, so eat a dick you ****ing idiot. There is no side, quit trying to word things your way, you're wrong, get mad about it punk bitch!

Wow you really did yourself proud there, so is it serious problems you have with your cognitive functions?
As for people getting mad about it? well you seem to be doing very well on that front.

[August]

*Insults and knee jerking*


While I agree that Tribesman is a waste of skin you need to tone down your rhetoric and stop with the swearing and name calling if you're going to stick around here.

Mookie in particular does not deserve what you're laying down here. While I rarely agree with his politics he is a good person who keeps an open mind and you're not making any friends on either side of the political landscape by attacking him like that.

[Tribesman]

While I agree that Tribesman is a waste of skin
Its good to see the quality of poster you agree with:yeah:
Best be careful though as Sky did say your trolling and insults are pushing you back onto his ignore list:yep:

[Bilge_Rat]

While I agree that Tribesman is a waste of skin you need to tone down your rhetoric and stop with the swearing and name calling if you're going to stick around here.



Agreed. Its useless trying to argue with him. Best is just to ignore him. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww204/ShoelessInSC/that-escalated-quickly-o.gif

[Tribesman]

Its called french staircase wit, obviously a new concept for someone as daft as you.
The concept of going off on one, doing a big spectacular fall on your face and then going "ooops I look silly".
Good point, when you went off on one and started doing mad nonsensical rants I didn't realise you was doing mad nonsensical rants which was why I didn't say you had gone off on one.:|\\
So does this mean your "wit" is currently having you deleting links to try and save face?

[Ducimus]

Agreed. Its useless trying to argue with him. Best is just to ignore him. :yep:


I did that awhile ago. All he does is troll. Ignore him and he'll cut bait and move on. Respond to him and he gets the attention he wants. It really is best to just ignore him.

[Sailor Steve]

Wow! Between 2200 last night and 0730 this morning I managed to miss a lot.

[mookiemookie]

Wow! Between 2200 last night and 0730 this morning I managed to miss a lot.

You missed the really good stuff that was there before Mr. Sunshine edited it. Here's hoping that they can see it when they check on the bad post report I sent.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, it's all there. That's why he's in the doghouse now. That, and what's left from other posts is more than enough anyway.

[Hottentot]

Wow! Between 2200 last night and 0730 this morning I managed to miss a lot.

Not really.

[Tribesman]

I did that awhile ago.
Ah of course.
That was with your attempt at following the most ridiculous logic possible on a very simple matter because you didn't like the conclusions someone had reached, it fell apart which led to you getting stroppy when it was shown that your approach made no sense at all.
Funnily enough August also jumped in trolling that topic and using the same flawed logic.
So in this case, to use your "logic", you are not diluvian you have never even been to diluvia so you can say nothing at all about the subject and had better not even mention noah until you have built your own ark or at least found some gopher wood.:up:


Wow! Between 2200 last night and 0730 this morning I managed to miss a lot.
It was strange really, diluvian had it all down well in a few words, done and dusted, a simple answer to a simple question...it only fell apart for him when he started to try and dodge around the answer he had just given and attack the question he had just answered.
To take his "novel" concept that clearly is something new and expand on it, he fell flat on his face down the stairs, then he got up and said "oops", he then repeatedly went back up the stairs took a massive leap and face planted without even a pause to say "ooops" each time.

[Sailor Steve]

I can see that, and done is done. There's no need to kick him when he can no longer respond. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

I can see that, and done is done.
Well as done is done and the real matter is before the courts and thepoliticians, the legislature are looking at the rather foolish wording they drew up and the relevant authorities are investigating the apparently flawed process to local police and prosecution followed and since the topic has "self defence" in the title is it time to move the topic in the direction of poor little Anders and his plea of "self defence":03:

Was he justified as not only did his paranoid delusions lead him to feel he was threatened himself he felt the whole neighbourhood was under attack so his neighboorhood watch plan kicked in against those dodgy suspicious characters

[Sailor Steve]

There is every chance that his version of the final events is accurate. That doesn't make him any less stupid, and because of his stupidity someone is dead. Second-degree murder? Manslaughter? Reckless endangerment? Innocent self-defense?

We'll see.

[breadcatcher101]

Holy cow guys, these personal attacks on eachother rmust stop.

We are all wise sage guys--and gals here, and while we may disagree with eachother, lets not get personal.

Ya'll have read my post on this topic, and I stand by them, I believe they are true.

With some of these posts I am surprised that some of you have not been booted.

I won't name who you are, but if you disagree do so in a civil matter.

[Jimbuna]

Looks like they have now stopped, now we can all get on with the topic in hand in a more civilised and respectful manner...one would hope.

[mookiemookie]

Now that the legal process has begun, Zimmerman will get an opportunity to present his side of the story. But given the intense media spotlight on the case, defense attorneys say it may be hard to find a jury of his peers in this close-knit community who don’t already have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. And even if the trial is moved or jurors are brought in from elsewhere, that may not shield them from public pressure, the attorneys said.

In the trial of Casey Anthony, who was acquitted of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, jurors had to be brought in from outside Orlando to hear the case. But even though the jury was sequestered during the trial, jurors were left ostracized and some “went into hiding” when their identities were revealed after rendering their decision, Baez said.

“How can a juror feel free to vote their conscience and to place a fair vote when they know, okay, I may be safe in here because I’m sequestered, but once I go out there and once my name is made public, people are going to harass me?” he said.

If jurors face this kind of outcry after delivering “unpopular decisions,” he said, “it may create a chilling effect where jurors are afraid to vote not guilty because of fear for public backlash. Who wants a bunch of media trucks parked outside their house asking them and harassing them as to why they made their decision?”

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11225122-tough-for-zimmerman-to-get-fair-trial-defense-attorneys-say?lite

Why do jurors need to have their names publicized? Wouldn't the natural solution to this be to have juror records sealed? Couldn't a judge order that?

[Tribesman]

There is every chance that his version of the final events is accurate.
Sorry, you missed that I had moved from one "self defence" story to another that is in todays news.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh no, I was just expressing the idea that anything is possible, and we, for all our opinion, don't know anything for sure.

[Onkel Neal]

One note about the recent posts in this thread: one member has received a suspension for his post, due to excessive and abusive language. I want to add that people who routinely troll and provoke others will be getting the boot very soon. It's not like you have not been warned before. If your modus operandi is to single out someone, disagree with them, throw in some ridicule and sarcasm, provoke and mock until your opponent erupts into a flame post--you will be looking for a new forum.

[Jimbuna]

One note about the recent posts in this thread: one member has received a suspension for his post, due to excessive and abusive language. I want to add that people who routinely troll and provoke others will be getting the boot very soon. It's not like you have not been warned before. If your modus operandi is to single out someone, disagree with them, throw in some ridicule and sarcasm, provoke and mock until your opponent erupts into a flame post--you will be looking for a new forum.

Rgr that.

[mookiemookie]

Rgr that.

I'm sure he was talking about you, jim. Watch yourself and straighten up, man. :O:

[mapuc]

I'm sure he was talking about you, jim. Watch yourself and straighten up, man. :O:

I could be wrong, but I think he meant everyone of us.

Markus

[CaptainHaplo]

Most folks on here can disagree without being insulting. A few can't. They know who they are and I would bet they have had a warning or 2 before now.

I am suprised at the charge - 2nd degree means the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was "evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

Given the situation - that is a rather tall road. I really hope they can consider lesser charges or else he gets off.

[Takeda Shingen]

Most folks on here can disagree without being insulting. A few can't. They know who they are and I would bet they have had a warning or 2 before now.

That's one of the things I always liked about you. You argue the point, never the person. And if your argument doesn't gain traction or stand up to scrutiny you never take the low road. We could use more like you on SubSim.

[CaptainHaplo]

That's one of the things I always liked about you. You argue the point, never the person. And if your argument doesn't gain traction or stand up to scrutiny you never take the low road. We could use more like you on SubSim.

Well, at least there is one thing.... ROFL

And whatdya mean, I am not always 100% right?

Seriously thanks! I do try - and there are occasional intellectual disagreements, and then there are times when I learn something. I figure neither of those are bad.

[krashkart]

Why do jurors need to have their names publicized? Wouldn't the natural solution to this be to have juror records sealed? Couldn't a judge order that?

I'm only guessing here, but it makes sense that a judge could order that. The jurors certainly have a right to their privacy and peace of mind.

[August]

The jurors certainly have a right to their privacy and peace of mind.


I agree but i'd think that secret juries would be a bad thing in the long run.

[krashkart]

I agree but i'd think that secret juries would be a bad thing in the long run.

How would that be a bad thing?

[Platapus]

The problem, in my opinion, is that the media is more concerned with their profit than actually serving the public's interest.

Think of how much easier it would be if the press showed some restraint in how they report these crimes. Not saying that the press should not be allowed to report on crimes, but I with the press would not "try" people before LE/DA can do their job.

[soopaman2]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11225122-tough-for-zimmerman-to-get-fair-trial-defense-attorneys-say?lite

Why do jurors need to have their names publicized? Wouldn't the natural solution to this be to have juror records sealed? Couldn't a judge order that?


Not with all the potential book money to be made on being a juror on such a controversial case. All the interviews on Fox News and CNN, the appearances on good morning America. Maybe even a reality show with Kim Kardashian, and the fat lady from Toddlers and Tiaras.

Get my point? This crap is nothing more than a joke and a potential reality show.

This case is diseased, and niether side will get justice.

Lets keep Reverend Al/ Jesse Jackson out of it, and Zimmermans daddy judge out of it, and hope justice can be served, without outside interference this time.

[August]

How would that be a bad thing?

Well if they're secret then how would you know that they even exist, or that they're not just a bunch of government stooges voting any way the prosecution wants?

[soopaman2]

Well if they're secret then how would you know that they even exist, or that they're not just a bunch of government stooges voting any way the prosecution wants?


Or any stooge voting the way the defense wants to right?

Or is it only corrupt if you disagree?

(remember, this state did aquit Casey Anthony, I wouldn't worry about your 2nd amendment hero)

[CaptainHaplo]

Secret juries are a bad thing - for both sides. Government - and justice - both work best when they are held to the light of day.

Trials need to be public - but if the public can't behave - then the offenders need to be hauled out.

[August]

Or any stooge voting the way the defense wants to right?

Or is it only corrupt if you disagree?

(remember, this state did aquit Casey Anthony, I wouldn't worry about your 2nd amendment hero)

Is there a particular reason for your rudeness or is that just your normal nature?

[soopaman2]

Is there a particular reason for your rudeness or is that just your normal nature?


I do not see me being so, my apologies if so August.

It just seemed you felt that any decision for the prosecution by a jury would be government stooges. You showed your side on the matter, with an obviously biased remark.

I was simply questioning your wording, and offering a polar opposite. The same remark worded to the other side.

Yes questioning things is in my nature. Rudeness was not intended, though my sarcasm is a bit strong sometimes.

(edit: It was not a personal jab at you August, just an opposing perspective with too much sarcasm injected, )

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually - there is a bias in the courts - and that is by design. We are (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty - so any secret process in which the prosecution - aka the government attorney - wins - is automatically biased and suspect.

It would be worse for the citizenry either way.

[August]

I do not see me being so, my apologies if so August.

It just seemed you felt that any decision for the prosecution by a jury would be government stooges. You showed your side on the matter, with an obviously biased remark.

My side? Just because I did not list every possible beneficiary to such an arraignment does not mean that I take anyone's side.

I was answering Krashkarts question about secret juries. Nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case which as far as I know is going to be tried by a public jury.

I was simply questioning your wording, and offering a polar opposite. The same remark worded to the other side.

Yes questioning things is in my nature. Rudeness was not intended, though my sarcasm is a bit strong sometimes.

(edit: It was not a personal jab at you August, just an opposing perspective with too much sarcasm injected, )

Really? I might buy you confusing the side discussion of secret jury's with this particular case but that doesn't explain these two statements of yours that I have quoted below:

Or is it only corrupt if you disagree?

I wouldn't worry about your 2nd amendment hero

The way I see it these two statements of yours are obviously meant purely as insults. They were unprovoked, they add absolutely nothing to the discussion, they do not reflect my opinion about this case in particular or in general and they are the very type of thing that Neal just warned everyone about not doing.

Now if you really want to know what a persons opinion is about something then just ask them. You might just get a better exchange than if you just start sarcastically insulting them.

[August]

Actually - there is a bias in the courts - and that is by design. We are (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty - so any secret process in which the prosecution - aka the government attorney - wins - is automatically biased and suspect.

It would be worse for the citizenry either way.

Exactly Hap.

The defense might get the right to reject prospective jurors but the state picks and assembles the jury pool. They're obviously going to have plenty of opportunity to stack the deck and we won't be able to tell because their names would be secret.

On the other hand since the defendants have a right to know who their jurors are then that kind of eliminates any possible degree of security that secrecy might afford them.

In fact the only ones actually kept in the dark by a secret jury is the rest of the country, unless of course it isn't to one side or the others benefit to "leak" the jurors names to the media.

I say change the venue and take whatever time is necessary to properly vet all prospective jurors but keep the judicial process out in the light of day where it belongs.

:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

Actually - there is a bias in the courts - and that is by design. We are (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty - so any secret process in which the prosecution - aka the government attorney - wins - is automatically biased and suspect.

It would be worse for the citizenry either way.
Very well put. I was wavering in my thoughts on this, but your post convinced me. Now I don't know why I was wavering.

[Platapus]

Now I don't know why I was wavering.

Are you wavering on wavering? :D

[mookiemookie]

Exactly Hap.

The defense might get the right to reject prospective jurors but the state picks and assembles the jury pool. They're obviously going to have plenty of opportunity to stack the deck and we won't be able to tell because their names would be secret.

On the other hand since the defendants have a right to know who their jurors are then that kind of eliminates any possible degree of security that secrecy might afford them.

In fact the only ones actually kept in the dark by a secret jury is the rest of the country, unless of course it isn't to one side or the others benefit to "leak" the jurors names to the media.

I say change the venue and take whatever time is necessary to properly vet all prospective jurors but keep the judicial process out in the light of day where it belongs.

:salute:

Hmm, I see what you mean with the "secret jury" thing. I just figure there's gotta be a way to protect these people from the feeding frenzy that happens after a high profile case, and the inevitable crapstorm that turns these poor people's lives upside down and potentially affects their decision on the case.

[soopaman2]

August. Your right.

I apologize, like a man in front of the community.

You and me never see eye to eye, but you are more reasonable in your facts and opposing arguments than most. I value your opinions and I am sorry I interjected my percieved biases onto you.

I blame the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry.:timeout:

[Sailor Steve]

Are you wavering on wavering? :D
I'm not sure. :doh:

[August]

August. Your right.

I apologize, like a man in front of the community.

You and me never see eye to eye, but you are more reasonable in your facts and opposing arguments than most. I value your opinions and I am sorry I interjected my percieved biases onto you.

I blame the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry.:timeout:

Eh water under the bridge, forget it. I'm sure i've done as bad or worse. We're all human.

[Madox58]

Hmm, I see what you mean with the "secret jury" thing. I just figure there's gotta be a way to protect these people from the feeding frenzy that happens after a high profile case, and the inevitable crapstorm that turns these poor people's lives upside down and potentially affects their decision on the case.

As a selected member of a jury you have a duty that is very clearly laid out.

You fail that duty if you allow outside things to affect your judgement.
To many people hope for high profile cases to do jury duty on for the 'fame' later on.

And that does not even address the News Media's 'hounding' of said.
:nope:

If you can't sit honest on a jury? Do like I do.
During selection say even Jay Walkers should be sentenced to death!
:haha:

You won't sit a single trial!!
:up:

[soopaman2]

I fear the American (greed) system in this case.

Book deals await these jurors. It is like the lottery. Morals or no morals, money talks. Plus all the appearances on the Nancy Grace courtroom rag show, and pundit appearances on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC.

CHA CHING!

Both Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Martin are being robbed of justice.

Why does the media love racebaiting crap like this. It makes a mockery of a sad story all around. And interferes with making proper sense of the facts.

My opinion (strictly opinion) Zim was wrong, but murder is too strong.

(it rhymes, kinda like Cochran with his "if it don't fit, aquit")

[Madox58]

The saddest point in time came when Morals went up for sale.
:nope:

I just refused a job on Moral and Professional grounds.
That does not make me special as I see it.
It only means I know what was asked of me was and is wrong based on all the information I have personnal insight on.

This was not a small time thing but involves several VERY large Corporations leaving themselves open to Multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Had I accepted the job? I'd be right in the middle if crap hits the fan.
Professionally? It was all built wrong and not up to any Building Code I could see.
Morally? I will not be the cause, direct or indirect, of anyone suffering injuries due to neglect or willful disregards of Building Codes.

[Aramike]

I fear the American (greed) system in this case.

Book deals await these jurors. It is like the lottery. Morals or no morals, money talks. Plus all the appearances on the Nancy Grace courtroom rag show, and pundit appearances on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC.

CHA CHING!

Both Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Martin are being robbed of justice.

Why does the media love racebaiting crap like this. It makes a mockery of a sad story all around. And interferes with making proper sense of the facts.

My opinion (strictly opinion) Zim was wrong, but murder is too strong.
(it rhymes, kinda like Cochran with his "if it don't fit, aquit")Not saying you're wrong, as you very well may be right. But I do want to suggest that people aren't putting themselves in Zimmerman's shoes.

Imagine the scenario: you're armed and in a community that had been suffering multiple burglaries. You see someone who looks suspicious at a strange hour. You call the police. The operator tells you not to follow.

Yet, the police have been not helpful at all in preventing the crime in your neighborhood. So you follow anyway. Your "suspect" attacks you. He makes a threat on your life and you shoot him.

Now - where was the law actually broken? Following someone isn't illegal even if a 911 operator tells you not to. The police have proven themselves unable to protect the community.

Most importantly, you were ATTACKED despite not committing any crime (again, disregarding a 911 operator is not a crime).

That's Zimmerman's account. If it's true, he did nothing wrong.

The problem is this: there are those that believe he did something wrong MERELY because the victim's skin color was black - that Zimmerman was racially profiling.

Except they have a problem: there's NOTHING ILLEGAL about a private citizen following anyone for ANY reason. So even if he WAS profiling Martin, it's not illegal (nor should it be - laws against what's in someone's head are irresponsible in that they are impossible to prove).

So what are we left with?

Simple questions:

1: Did Zimmerman provoke Martin intentionally?

2: Did Zimmerman attack Martin?

3: Did Martin attack Zimmerman?

4: Did Zimmerman confront Martin due to skin color?

5: Did Martin feel that Zimmerman was confronting him because of Zimmerman's skin color?

It's interesting how #5 is never brought up. What if Zimmerman WAS pursuing Martin and Martin took offense to it and became aggressive? Did anyone ever think that such a response could have been motivated by ZIMMERMAN'S skin color? IE, a light-skinned guy is following me so therefore he must be dangerous...

I don't know for certain the answers to any of this, but one thing seems obvious: Zimmerman is being considered guilty until proven innocent, and there are many questions that AREN'T being asked despite the reciprical being true.

We have blacks in congress that are OPENLY assuming that Martin was attacked because of his skin color - yet, they will NEVER admit that they are only making such an assumption because Martin's skin color differs from Zimmerman's.

Hmmm ... who are the racists, again?

[Tribesman]

So what are we left with?

Simple questions:

Yet you miss out the main questions in the whole sorry episode and the parties involved which have to face those questions.

[CaptainHaplo]

We usually agree Aramike, but I am going to point out a couple of things where legally the arguement fails.

Imagine the scenario: you're armed and in a community that had been suffering multiple burglaries. You see someone who looks suspicious at a strange hour. You call the police. The operator tells you not to follow.

Yet, the police have been not helpful at all in preventing the crime in your neighborhood. So you follow anyway.

Problem #1 = "If the police won't stop it - I will act" is vigilante justice. If you make the arguement he was not going to act even if a crime was committed - then he had no reason to follow since the cops are "not helpful at all in preventing the crime". If he WAS going to act - its vigilante justice. Its a no win arguement if they try this route.

Problem #2 = "Imagine the scenario: you're armed", "The operator tells you not to follow." (this did not occur however - he was told they "didn't need him to do that". ) "So you follow anyway."

Had this gone down the way its stated - he would have been violating the instructions of a sworn officer in many jurisdiction. In some areas - dispatchers are sworn LE officers.

Now - since it did not occur this way - he did not act contrary to the direction of an LE officer. The problem is - while knowing he was armed - he took it upon himself to follow a person he had described as "drugged", "messed up" and likely armed. This action of willfully choosing to follow a person who he described thusly, created a situation in which it became likely that a violent altercation could take place. While he has no duty to retreat under Florida law once an altercation occurs, those who carry (both legally and illegally) are responsible for their prior actions that CONTRIBUTE to such an altercation - and the results of such.

After research - Murder 2 is by definition "depraved indifference" in Florida - specifically it requires action which is imminently dangerous. This is a perfect definition for what occured PRIOR to any altercation. Any reasonable person would not create by their own actions a situation in which a "drugged, probably armed" person who was "checking them out" could even start a physical, face to face altercation. Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin was an action that created an imminent danger IF Zimmerman believed Martin was high and possibly armed. If he did NOT believe it - then it gets even worse for him because it furthers the "intent" arguement.

Either way you take that arguement, Zimmerman is screwed.

His choice to follow Martin - regardless of advice or instruction from LE, while knowing he was armed and suspecting that Martin was armed - was "an imminently dangerous act". Thus, because that act contributed to the altercation and the results were the death of Martin, he becomes culpable under depraved indifference.

[Onkel Neal]

Any time there is a rash of crime and burglaries, and the police are not acting competently, the community needs to get in the face of city council and demand the police chief's job. That's the most dorect way to get police to do their job. Neighborhood watch is mainly to detect and report.

[August]

Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin was an action that created an imminent danger IF Zimmerman believed Martin was high and possibly armed. If he did NOT believe it - then it gets even worse for him because it furthers the "intent" arguement.

I'm no legal expert but how would this apply in similar situations?

For example:

While coming back from the gun range I see a drunk driver weaving down the road and follow him while reporting it to 911. The dispatcher tells me that following him is not necessary but I continue to do it anyways. He spots me and speeds away. Soon I loose sight of him and turn for home but then the drunk suddenly reappears from a side street and crashes his car into mine trying to run me off a cliff.

Should I be held liable for murder if I am forced to shoot the drunk in order to protect myself?

[Sailor Steve]

Yet you miss out the main questions in the whole sorry episode and the parties involved which have to face those questions.
It's usually considered proper, when pointing out that someone has omitted something, to list the missing items. To just say it is rude.

I'm no legal expert but how would this apply in similar situations?
And what if your version was a lie, and you actually ran the other guy off the road and then attacked him, and when he got the upper hand you shot him? How would we know which was true?

As with any question involving logic your example is valid only if every one of the assumptions is correct. The example is identical to what a certain segment of the posting population has been insisting on all along. If the situation is exactly as Zimmerman describes it then he is indeed innocent. The problem is that we don't know which is true, and Martin isn't here to give his version.

It may be true, but hypothetical examples prove nothing, and don't really help.

[August]

It may be true, but hypothetical examples prove nothing, and don't really help.

Well sorry Steve. I'm not trying to solve the nations problems, just understand the point that Hap was making.

[Tribesman]

It's usually considered proper, when pointing out that someone has omitted something, to list the missing items. To just say it is rude.

How many parties apart from the two Haplo named were involved right from the off on that night?
Too much has this been involved in a distraction about the two individuals when the real core of the issue is the local authorities and their actions.

[CaptainHaplo]

I'm no legal expert but how would this apply in similar situations?

For example:

While coming back from the gun range I see a drunk driver weaving down the road and follow him while reporting it to 911. The dispatcher tells me that following him is not necessary but I continue to do it anyways. He spots me and speeds away. Soon I loose sight of him and turn for home but then the drunk suddenly reappears from a side street and crashes his car into mine trying to run me off a cliff.

Should I be held liable for murder if I am forced to shoot the drunk in order to protect myself?

Your hypothetical has you "chasing" a non-fleeing suspect, once he lflees you don't "speed after him" - Martin specifically RAN away from Zimmerman and that is when Zimmerman pursued. If you had sped after the drunk driver - you would have violated the law. In fact, a good DA would argue that your actions caused him to flee - and had he rammed someone else and killed them - you could be an accessory. Even without that - you speeding created an imminently dangerous situation - regardless of whether the drunk turns and confronts or not. Speed - and vehicles - kill.

You are not responsible for the choices of others unless you contribute materially to their choices. However - if your choices directly contribute to the creation of an imminently dangerous situation - then under florida law you could be charged with murder 2.

August - its important to remember that the way Florida defines the law is what matters here. Whether we agree or disagree with it, whether its a "good" or "bad" law....

[August]

Your hypothetical has you "chasing" a non-fleeing suspect, once he lflees you don't "speed after him" - Martin specifically RAN away from Zimmerman and that is when Zimmerman pursued.

And quickly lost him. Not unreasonable given that Martin was a young athlete and Zimmerman is a 30 something with a pot belly.

In fact, a good DA would argue that your actions caused him to flee - and had he rammed someone else and killed them - you could be an accessory. Even without that - you speeding created an imminently dangerous situation - regardless of whether the drunk turns and confronts or not. Speed - and vehicles - kill.

So a month later he runs over a gaggle of nuns and I'm an accessory to that too? Obviously not. So what in your opinion would be the minimum amount of time that would have to pass between loosing contact and subsequent events in order for me not to be responsible for his future actions?

August - its important to remember that the way Florida defines the law is what matters here. Whether we agree or disagree with it, whether its a "good" or "bad" law....

I'm not arguing with you Hap but this is an internet forum. It is by definition all about our own opinions and whether we agree or disagree.

[Aramike]

We usually agree Aramike, but I am going to point out a couple of things where legally the arguement fails.

I'm not arguing that he was legally correct, I'm merely putting myself in his shoes. I'll let the judicial system sort the technicalities out.

[CaptainHaplo]

So a month later he runs over a gaggle of nuns and I'm an accessory to that too? Obviously not. So what in your opinion would be the minimum amount of time that would have to pass between loosing contact and subsequent events in order for me not to be responsible for his future actions?

Agreed - it wouldn't be the same. However - how long would depend on how long the initial set of circumstances you helped create lasted. If you start pursuit and it happens because you are in pursuit or have just broken off - then yes you (not being LE) are then part of the process. How long is required from the break to when the culpability ends? Who knows. That would be determined by a jury if it went to court. I would say if you broke off within 2 minutes - it would be a close call - if 5 minutes after losing you the drunk is still driving like a maniac fleeing - then its all on him. Where is the "line in the sand" - only a jury hearing the facts of the specific case could determine that.

Because each situation is unique, I don't think one can say - for example - that at 1:59 seconds your culpable, but at 2:00 your not as some set in stone rule.

Your earlier scenario also had a drunk driver - someone you saw COMMITTING a crime - while Martin had committed no crime that we know of at the time Z pursued him. *One can argue he assualted Z but that is later in the situation*

Your decision to pursue a drunk - or even a suspected drunk - creates a decision making process in your "target". He makes a bad decision, flees and kills someone in a wreck. You are culpable because without YOUR actions - he would not have fled - thus your actions contributed to the "imminently dangerous" situation. Without them - the chain of events would not have occured.

Yes one can argue how far "back" that chain of culpability should go. That is part of what will be determined in the hearing of this case.

[Aramike]

Your decision to pursue a drunk - or even a suspected drunk - creates a decision making process in your "target". He makes a bad decision, flees and kills someone in a wreck. You are culpable because without YOUR actions - he would not have fled - thus your actions contributed to the "imminently dangerous" situation. Without them - the chain of events would not have occured.This is where you lose me. Just because you create a "decision making process" doesn't mean you should be accountable for the subsequent bad decision.

What if creating that decision actually forced the "target" to take a different route that may have spared a group of kids on the original route?

We don't have crystal balls.

[CaptainHaplo]

This is where you lose me. Just because you create a "decision making process" doesn't mean you should be accountable for the subsequent bad decision.

What if creating that decision actually forced the "target" to take a different route that may have spared a group of kids on the original route?

We don't have crystal balls.

Key point: "doesn't mean you should be accountable" - unfortunately, legal precedence disagrees. This is why bar owners are liable if someone drinks to much and then CHOOSES to drive instead of call a cab. There are other examples as well....

[Aramike]

Key point: "doesn't mean you should be accountable" - unfortunately, legal precedence disagrees. This is why bar owners are liable if someone drinks to much and then CHOOSES to drive instead of call a cab. There are other examples as well....In some cases, yes.

Yet, your example is an interesting one. A quick Google search shows that North Carolina's Supreme Court found such liability non-existant. Other legislatures have said that it places an undue burden on businesses.

New Jersey, on the other hand, sees it differently, and enforces such liabilty, but ONLY with a heavy burden of proof.

My point is this: there are two schools of thought on the issue, not a single, legal precedent. So it becomes an issue for debate with no solid right or wrong.

As such, my OPINION is that such liabilities are irresponsible.

[CaptainHaplo]

In some cases, yes.

Yet, your example is an interesting one. A quick Google search shows that North Carolina's Supreme Court found such liability non-existant. Other legislatures have said that it places an undue burden on businesses.

New Jersey, on the other hand, sees it differently, and enforces such liabilty, but ONLY with a heavy burden of proof.

My point is this: there are two schools of thought on the issue, not a single, legal precedent. So it becomes an issue for debate with no solid right or wrong.

As such, my OPINION is that such liabilities are irresponsible.

I agree in some ways. The question is - what does FLORIDA law say? That is where it gets really murky....

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/F5EDDA415D032B218525767E0071DA90

In essence - that kind of liability "depends" - so again it will go to the courts to decide in this case. When "third party" liability is possible under the legal system in florida - it only follows that involved party liability is a likelyhood.

[August]

Key point: "doesn't mean you should be accountable" - unfortunately, legal precedence disagrees. This is why bar owners are liable if someone drinks to much and then CHOOSES to drive instead of call a cab. There are other examples as well....

A bar owner is only held liable if it can be shown that he continued to serve drinks to an obviously drunk person with no apparent ride home.

He cannot forcibly prevent a person from leaving the bar and maybe getting behind the drivers seat in a car somewhere off the premises.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Not saying you're wrong, as you very well may be right. But I do want to suggest that people aren't putting themselves in Zimmerman's shoes.

Imagine the scenario: you're armed and in a community that had been suffering multiple burglaries. You see someone who looks suspicious at a strange hour.

This, in itself is not a crime.

You call the police. The operator tells you not to follow.

Yet, the police have been not helpful at all in preventing the crime in your neighborhood. So you follow anyway. Your "suspect" attacks you. He makes a threat on your life and you shoot him.

Now - where was the law actually broken? Following someone isn't illegal even if a 911 operator tells you not to. The police have proven themselves unable to protect the community.

The part where Z shot T. The default in this situation is some variant of murder unless Z has a proper affirmative defense. Even by the rather loose Floridan law he doesn't because his tracking can be considered provocative. Being provocative itself is not a crime. However, due to this Z's use of force cannot be justified under 776.012, only under 776.041. He has a duty to retreat. And he is not protected by 776.032, so the police can and should arrest him, grill him and force him to prove his affirmative defense in court.

He might still get his day in court if he can demonstrate to preponderance of evidence that
1) Trevor attacked him first, because tracking isn't that great a provocation and probably doesn't justify Trevor' use of force (IF he struck first).
2) He really reasonably believed at that moment he was about to die, despite the fact he wasn't worried enough to go to the hospital.

Even if he doesn't prove 2, if he can prove 1 he would probably get some kind of lowball sentence.

1: Did Zimmerman provoke Martin intentionally?

No question here. Definitely. Even if Martin was out to commit a crime AND the tracking was approved by the police, Z's tracking IS a provocation. And since he clearly wasn't accidentally tracking him, there is no doubt it is intentional.

2: Did Zimmerman attack Martin?

Z says No. However, he initiated the use of lethal force.

3: Did Martin attack Zimmerman?

Z says Yes, but he really could hardly have said anything different.

4: Did Zimmerman confront Martin due to skin color?

5: Did Martin feel that Zimmerman was confronting him because of Zimmerman's skin color?

I don't know for certain the answers to any of this, but one thing seems obvious: Zimmerman is being considered guilty until proven innocent, and there are many questions that AREN'T being asked despite the reciprical being true.

Yes he is. He shot and killed someone. He admits to all this, so he's guilty. The ball is in his court to prove his affirmative defense so his use of force is justified and he is not guilty again.

[yubba]

Crime ABC Shows Alleged Bloodied Image of Zimmerman’s Head on Night of Martin Shooting


Posted on April 20, 2012 at 8:33am by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/billyhallowell.thumbnail.png Billy Hallowell (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/billyhallowell)
Print » (javascript:window.print();)
Email » (?subject=TheBlaze.com%20-%20ABC%20Shows%20Alleged%20Bloodied%20Image%20of%2 0Zimmerman%27s%20Head%20on%20Night%20of%20Martin%2 0Shooting&body=I%20thought%20you%20would%20like%20this%20sto ry%20from%20TheBlaze.com%0A%0Ahttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-shows-bloodied-image-of-zimmermans-head-on-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/)





Comments (207) (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-shows-bloodied-image-of-zimmermans-head-on-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/#comments)
Watch the live stream of George Zimmerman’s 9 a.m. ET hearing at the end of this article.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image-zimmerman1-270x151.jpg


not a slam dunk but it does prove that he was getting his head bashed in, so it's down to kill or be killed, if Zimmerman would have had his weapon drawn I believe the kid would be still alive.

[mookiemookie]

The photo shows that Zimmerman was injured in the altercation, which wasn't really in doubt (except for people trying to use grainy police station footage as some sort of proof that he wasn't) but what it doesn't and cannot prove is who was the aggressor. I still contend that if someone were chasing me with a gun, I'd fight back hard enough to injure them too. I guess that's going to be up to the jury to decide....obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

But I still think it's a scary thing for the state to sanction killing someone else in a situation that you yourself created.

[August]

...obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

Or they knew that if he wasn't charged with something there would be riots this summer. There may still be depending on the verdict.

[yubba]

Sounds like Z made bail I guess there will be many fanning the flames of hate, instead of addressing the issues of our communties, to rid ourselves of this criminal element that instills fear into all of us that live here in central Florida it's turning into a war zone. Just last month a female Deputy Sherriff was shot and killed here in Brevard County.

[Sailor Steve]

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here. This holds true for the people trying to crucify him before all is revealed, but condemning either one out of hand makes you the problem, not the solution.

[Aramike]

This, in itself is not a crime.And ... I said it was a crime, where? (I'm guessing you're referring to the "activity" and not the "watching" as that would make more sense).

And before you say I implied it, the only thing I implied was "reasonably suspicious" - not a crime.

It seems worth mentioning that Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime, either.The part where Z shot T. The default in this situation is some variant of murder unless Z has a proper affirmative defense. Even by the rather loose Floridan law he doesn't because his tracking can be considered provocative. Being provocative itself is not a crime. However, due to this Z's use of force cannot be justified under 776.012, only under 776.041. He has a duty to retreat. And he is not protected by 776.032, so the police can and should arrest him, grill him and force him to prove his affirmative defense in court.

He might still get his day in court if he can demonstrate to preponderance of evidence that
1) Trevor attacked him first, because tracking isn't that great a provocation and probably doesn't justify Trevor' use of force (IF he struck first).
2) He really reasonably believed at that moment he was about to die, despite the fact he wasn't worried enough to go to the hospital.

Even if he doesn't prove 2, if he can prove 1 he would probably get some kind of lowball sentence.I'm sorry, friend, but your entire post was a prime candidate for "post that misses the point" of the decade. You're making huge assumptions on a sequence of events which are contested, and applying the law as though your assumption is true. Zimmerman CLAIMS that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked, which, if accurate, invalidates everything you cite.

Yet, I wasn't arguing a single damn thing on a primarily legal level. Rather, I was making a point on a "put yourself in this situation level" - a human one. Like it or not, despite the fact that somehow you've reached a technical verdict (which in and of itself implies that the spirit of the very legal system you cite completely escapes you), a jury is going to consider the emotional situation ... which is actually ALSO part of the law.

The legal system wasn't designed to be treated the way you try to, which is a reason cases aren't presented before courts in the way you argue them on this message board.

Yet, despite all of that, I must reiterate you're missing the point of my post. I won't regurgitate here in a "quote this/respond to this" fashion, as I think I was pretty clear that I was simply referring to being in Zimmerman's shoes without considering the finer points of the law.

Most importantly, my point was that, while I probably wouldn't have acted in the same way he did, I don't find it a stretch that others would. In other words, although I may not agree with him, I can see where he was coming from.

And that has not a damned thing to do with 776.041 .. or any other statute.

PS: I'm curious - will you stipulate that Zimmerman acted legally if he is acquitted?

[Aramike]

The photo shows that Zimmerman was injured in the altercation, which wasn't really in doubt (except for people trying to use grainy police station footage as some sort of proof that he wasn't) but what it doesn't and cannot prove is who was the aggressor. I still contend that if someone were chasing me with a gun, I'd fight back hard enough to injure them too. I guess that's going to be up to the jury to decide....obviously DA figured they still had a case despite these pictures.

But I still think it's a scary thing for the state to sanction killing someone else in a situation that you yourself created.Fair enough - but I wonder if Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun. Your point seems counter-intuitive - most people try to avoid an armed pursuer - not attack them.

While I concede that you may be right that Zimmerman got close enough to Martin that Martin felt his life was in danger, I simply refuse to ASSUME that. Perhaps you're right - Zimmerman flashed his piece and was close enough that Martin thought he was fighting for his life.

But I can also see how you COULD be wrong.

Bottom line is that we don't convict people on a 50/50 proposition.

[Tribesman]

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here.
As was stated. He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt therefore he is a gangsta so is a criminal who should be shot.

[HunterICX]

As was stated. He was wearing a hooded sweatshirt therefore he is a gangsta so is a criminal who should be shot.

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea and skittles....if people fear what these gangsta thugs can do with a package of Skittles just think of the mass hysteria it would cause if they armed themselves with Snickers.

HunterICX

[Tribesman]

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea
He should have been armed with Vanilla Ice, its less intimidating so they wouldn't have assumed he was a real gansta.

[antikristuseke]

Has to be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog8ou-ZepE

[August]

You forgot he was dangerously armed with Ice Tea and skittles....if people fear what these gangsta thugs can do with a package of Skittles just think of the mass hysteria it would cause if they armed themselves with Snickers.

HunterICX

A 6.2 foot tall athlete doesn't anything to beat another man to death but his hands, which is exactly what the evidence released so far says Martin was attempting to do. A punch in the nose is one thing but sitting on top of another person and beating his head into concrete is attempting to kill or seriously injure them.

It's also not a way of disarming a person with a gun since with his hands on Zimmermans head he is not stopping him from drawing and shooting.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It seems worth mentioning that Zimmerman following Martin was not a crime, either.I'm sorry, friend, but your entire post was a prime candidate for "post that misses the point" of the decade. You're making huge assumptions on a sequence of events which are contested, and applying the law as though your assumption is true. Zimmerman CLAIMS that he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked, which, if accurate, invalidates everything you cite.

What I am saying is that the tracking, which he undeniably initiated, invalidated his qualification to claim self-defense under 776.012. With that provocation, he can only claim it under 776.041, even if I accept his claim that he was trying to break off (by the way, you DID not mention that part in your previous post) b/c of the short elapsed time.

Yet, I wasn't arguing a single damn thing on a primarily legal level. Rather, I was making a point on a "put yourself in this situation level" - a human one.

Here's my opinion on the moral level. Given the end result, which was definitely at least partially his fault, he should have been subject to a most thorough investigation and court trial to define the elements of the case, instead of being allowed to walk off under the protection of 776.032.

Like it or not, despite the fact that somehow you've reached a technical verdict (which in and of itself implies that the spirit of the very legal system you cite completely escapes you), a jury is going to consider the emotional situation ... which is actually ALSO part of the law.

I don't deny them that right. I did say he might get his day in court, did I? I wasn't being sarcastic.

For the "spirit" part, the lawmaker who made those laws in the first place did say how the police interpreted it sure wasn't what he meant.

I'll argue, further, that I am using the "Provocation" part of 776.041, which is written w/ interpretive room in comparison to the excessive detail elsewhere in the clauses in the sense that it was intended to. The vagueness ensures that unless the attacker hit you completely out of the blue, you'll have to take care to ensure that you hadn't provoked him. Otherwise, you may still win your day eventually, but only after sweating it out in front of police and courts, an experience unpleasant and costly enough to have its own deterrent effect.

It encourages the avoidance of maneuvers that may be considered provocative. If you are aware you are partially at fault in any confrontation, it encourages you to retreat. It gives the policemen an "out" to actually investigate suspicious cases like this one, rather than being forced to look the other way thanks to 776.032, which I don't think was the intent of that law either.

You can stand your ground, but be careful not to provoke people as well - surely, that is morally the correct thing as well.

PS: I'm curious - will you stipulate that Zimmerman acted legally if he is acquitted?

Sure. As I said, he DOES have a case. If he establishes his affirmative defense and the jury weighs it and says it is self-defense, OK acquit him. But don't let him slither away under the protection of 776.032, his culpability in this business is not low enough that he qualifies, or should qualify for that. I suspect you even agree with this, or else you wouldn't be saying

although I may not agree with him, I can see where he was coming from.

[yubba]

Yubba, your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but you seem to be automatically assuming that Martin was part of the "criminal element". You don't know that for a fact, and until all the facts are in for all you know Zimmerman might actually be the guilty one here. This holds true for the people trying to crucify him before all is revealed, but condemning either one out of hand makes you the problem, not the solution.
what I'm trying to put across is that we have a lot of crime here in central Florida and people are on edge, just two days ago we have had two teenagers shot and killed gangland style and their bodies burnt close to Orlando and there have been more shootings and killings, carjackings and home invasions, since this story has broke and the sad thing about this, is that this is going to happen again. I just watched a couple hundred motorcycles go by in tribute to the fallen female officer we lost last month. So why did Z follow M , because he was protecting his neigborhood and was doing what he thought was right, M would be still be alive if he had either ran for it and went home or respectively ask Z what was up, and told Z who he was and where he was going. So if you look like a thug act like a thug, then you must be Mother Terreshia. so shoot me for misspelling her name. And if this makes it to trial a good defence lawyer is going to show how much of a little thug Trayvon really was, how crappy his parents were, and how messed up the black community really is. You know what, your right, I am assume-ing that he was, because I see too much of this crap, stop the crime and stop imbrace-ing the gangster lifesyle.

[nikimcbee]

what I'm trying to put across is that we have a lot of crime here in central Florida and people are on edge, just two days ago we have had two teenagers shot and killed gangland style and their bodies burnt close to Orlando and there have been more shootings and killings, carjackings and home invasions, since this story has broke and the sad thing about this, is that this is going to happen again. I just watched a couple hundred motorcycles go by in tribute to the fallen female officer we lost last month. So why did Z follow M , because he was protecting his neigborhood and was doing what he thought was right, M would be still be alive if he had either ran for it and went home or respectively ask Z what was up, and told Z who he was and where he was going. So if you look like a thug act like a thug, then you must be Mother Terreshia. so shoot me for misspelling her name. And if this makes it to trial a good defence lawyer is going to show how much of a little thug Trayvon really was, how crappy his parents were, and how messed up the black community really is. You know what, your right, I am assume-ing that he was, because I see too much of this crap, stop the crime and stop imbrace-ing the gangster lifesyle.

Good point Yubba.

[HunterICX]

A 6.2 foot tall athlete doesn't anything to beat another man to death but his hands, which is exactly what the evidence released so far says Martin was attempting to do. A punch in the nose is one thing but sitting on top of another person and beating his head into concrete is attempting to kill or seriously injure them.

It's also not a way of disarming a person with a gun since with his hands on Zimmermans head he is not stopping him from drawing and shooting.

If you've been to a high school recently or observed how high school kids fight you'll notice a similarity as one is mostly on top of the other beating him on the ground.

But I wasn't referring to the struggle itself, the fact is that he was chasing someone who he thought to be a gangsta criminal but ends up with a dead kid that carried a package of skittles and a can of Ice tea.

A lot of questions remain unclear on what happened exactly and who is to blame for it. I really don't care much of the whole case and my perspective of it that both may have a share of the blame, how exactly I don't know and perhaps we'll find out when the case is resolved. The only thing I didn't agree with is how the Police handled it, a bit too passive imo.

HunterICX

[Sailor Steve]

Good point Yubba.
No, it's not a good point at all. Jason, I thought you had more objectivity than that.

Yubba, again you are absolutely convince of your own take on this. You may be right, but you refuse to see that you may not. So you have a lot of crime. That doesn't mean that everyone you see is a criminal.

So if you look like a thug act like a thug
Wearing a hoodie is a capital crime? When did he act like a thug? Zimmerman says Martin jumped him. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. We only have the survivor's word on that.

My point is that none of knows what happened. You are saying that others are condemnin Zimmerman without knowing what happened, yet you say you know exactly what happened and Martin got what he deserved. Again, maybe you're right. My complaint is that you only post as if you know you're right, and you don't.

[RickC Sniper]

So why did Z follow M , because he was protecting his neigborhood and was doing what he thought was right, M would be still be alive if he had either ran for it and went home or respectively ask Z what was up, and told Z who he was and where he was going.


If some dude starts following me and when I try to ditch him he keeps pursuing me the LAST thing I'm about to do is "respectively" ask him what was up.

It was not Z's job to follow anybody to protect his neighborhood. It was Z's job to report, which he did.
His job was done right at that point.

[themrwho]

admittedly I didn't read the whole thread here and I was not even following the case recently in the media, however from my POV basics are clear from day 1 and having just read the last 5 comments here; I can't believe some of us can justify a killing because of "thug-like looks" and other pathetic 'causes' such as "he did not respectfully ask what's up?".

bottom line is, this guy killed a person in cold blood and if he gets away with it, that'll be only because of victim's skin colour, in the year 2012.

so sad.

[mookiemookie]

And if this makes it to trial a good defence lawyer is going to show how much of a little thug Trayvon really was, how crappy his parents were, and how messed up the black community really is. You know what, your right, I am assume-ing that he was, because I see too much of this crap, stop the crime and stop imbrace-ing the gangster lifesyle.

None of which makes a damn bit of difference to the facts at hand. None. Zero. Zippo. Zimmerman was justified in shooting a kid because that kid once got suspended from school because they found a bit of weed? That's a disgusting thought.

[MH]

None of which makes a damn bit of difference to the facts at hand. None. Zero. Zippo. Zimmerman was justified in shooting a kid because that kid once got suspended from school because they found a bit of weed? That's a disgusting thought.

Since it is Z claims vs dead man case with some shady street law mixed in, it all end up with digging the dirt and establishing profile of people involved.
The background it seems will have decisive wight here.

[August]

bottom line is, this guy killed a person in cold blood and if he gets away with it, that'll be only because of victim's skin colour, in the year 2012.


That is pure unsupported speculation. I have read the whole thread and have kept up with the story in the news and as far as I can tell if Zimmerman is guilty it certainly wasn't in cold blood.

[RickC Sniper]

The background it seems will have decisive wight here.


I certainly hope not.
It would be sad if you could get a guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder based on some profiling of a person's character and no other evidence. Do not forget that Z has a history of domestic violence. If the dead's past is relevant, so is his.

Regardless, I cannot see a 2nd degree murder verdict in this case. A lesser charge like manslaughter perhaps, but a murder charge is a reach considering the lack of evidence and the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Tribesman]

Regardless, I cannot see a 2nd degree murder verdict in this case. A lesser charge like manslaughter perhaps, but a murder charge is a reach considering the lack of evidence and the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Could it be said that the initial actions(or inaction) showed a failure on the part of the authorities in Florida and the apparent over reach in bringing the 2nd degree charge shows another failure on their part.

[soopaman2]

Could it be said that the initial actions(or inaction) showed a failure on the part of the authorities in Florida and the apparent over reach in bringing the 2nd degree charge shows another failure on their part.

I agree the 2nd degree murder is an overreach, some kind of 3rd degree manslaughter would be more prudent.

I am not familiar with Florida codes, so I can be wrong, but murder is usually intentional and malicious.

I do not see either here. But there is a crime (IMHO) Manslaughter 3 at the least. I do not think Zimmerman is a scumbag, who wanted to test out his sidearm.

The overreach on the prosecution (go Florida! Not the first time) will set this man free, and the blacks will throw a fit, thanks to racebaiters who jump onto this because they lack real jobs. (Right racebaiters Jesse and Al?)

[Platapus]

You can find the statutes here

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20782

[soopaman2]

Oh wow. While a great link provided a bit of fodder for comedy.

Are these guys serious?
782.081
(c)***8195;***8220;Simulated self-murder***8221; means the artistic depiction or portrayal of self-murder which is not an actual self-murder. The term includes, but is not limited to, an artistic depiction or portrayal of self-murder in a script, play, movie, or story presented to the public or during an event.

No movies folks. Move along, we do not need the money here.

Although I did find this, Ill just leave the link, it is long winded, but shows the "qualifications for murder"


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

Florida...*sighs*

I see no murder, may even be a purposeful overreach to let him off, without inciting the blacks.
I honestly have little faith in Florida prosecutors.

[nikimcbee]

I stand by my post. I responded they way I did, because Portlandia just had it's forth mass-mob robbery. There was a large group of teenagers who flash mob stores and steal as much as they can in around 30 seconds and then run. When they showed the security cam footage one the news, guess how they were dressed. I empathize with Yubba's crime frustrations.





No, it's not a good point at all. Jason, I thought you had more objectivity than that.

Yubba, again you are absolutely convince of your own take on this. You may be right, but you refuse to see that you may not. So you have a lot of crime. That doesn't mean that everyone you see is a criminal.


Wearing a hoodie is a capital crime? When did he act like a thug? Zimmerman says Martin jumped him. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. We only have the survivor's word on that.

My point is that none of knows what happened. You are saying that others are condemnin Zimmerman without knowing what happened, yet you say you know exactly what happened and Martin got what he deserved. Again, maybe you're right. My complaint is that you only post as if you know you're right, and you don't.

[Sailor Steve]

I stand by my post. I responded they way I did, because Portlandia just had it's forth mass-mob robbery. There was a large group of teenagers who flash mob stores and steal as much as they can in around 30 seconds and then run. When they showed the security cam footage one the news, guess how they were dressed. I empathize with Yubba's crime frustrations.
So do I. My objection isn't to the idea that Martin may have been one of them, but to the automatic assumption that he was. Can you see the difference? Guilt by association is a terrible thing, and that applies equally to Martin and to Zimmerman.

So your town is suffering from robberies, and the robbers all dress a certain way. Does that mean that everyone who dresses that way is a robber? Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out? That's what you claim to be standing by.

[CaptainHaplo]

Regardless, I cannot see a 2nd degree murder verdict in this case. A lesser charge like manslaughter perhaps, but a murder charge is a reach considering the lack of evidence and the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Murder 2 can be equated to "depraved indifference" in most areas - and that not only is an excellent description of the legal definition of murder 2 for the state of florida, its also a very good match to what the facts (as we know them) occured.

Edit - let me expound on that.

Zimmerman is going to try to use an "affirmative defense" in that he had the right to defend himself. If this were a random street attack that would work - however - he was fully knowledgeable that he was armed, he suspected that Martin was possibly on drugs and armed (per 911 tape) and thus his actions - by being armed and following a possible drugged and armed person - resulted in the altercation. The fact that he was armed and had - per his own words - reasonable suspicion that martin was a danger - shows he acted with depraved indifference to human life. How? His actions increased the likelhood of firearms discharge - either his own or the one he suspected Martin to have - which could have ended with an innocent bystander being killed. His actions created a higher risk of loss of life without good cause - thus depraved indifference. The fact that it was Martin who was killed vs someone else is irrelevant - had his shot gone awry and killed a non involved party - he would still be legally culpable under that charge.

[Bubblehead1980]

Could it be said that the initial actions(or inaction) showed a failure on the part of the authorities in Florida and the apparent over reach in bringing the 2nd degree charge shows another failure on their part.

2nd degree is politically motivated overreach on the part of "special prosecutor", who by the way did not have enough confidence in her case to take it to a grand jury because she found upon looking over the evidence from the night of the crime, the same that the police and state attorney's office found, no probable cause for arrest.Since the ignorant masses lead by buffoons caused such an uproar, the politicians are appeasing them, sad.Good thing is, justice will most likely prevail but our system is being made a mockery of by the fact that he was even charged.

[Sailor Steve]

...ignorant masses lead by buffoons caused such an uproar...
Yep, that's me in a nutshell. I'm so glad we have knowledgable experts like you who can produce facts to set me straight.

[Bubblehead1980]

Yep, that's me in a nutshell. I'm so glad we have knowledgable experts like you who can produce facts to set me straight.


Wss not referring to you Steve, more the Al Sharpton's of the world(and not I don't mean black people), the crazies.We disagree, but was not referring to you.

[CaptainHaplo]

Wss not referring to you Steve, more the Al Sharpton's of the world(and not I don't mean black people), the crazies.We disagree, but was not referring to you.

Bubblehead - break down my arguement for depraved indifference since you disagree. If you don't mind, of course.

[Sailor Steve]

Wss not referring to you Steve, more the Al Sharpton's of the world(and not I don't mean black people), the crazies.We disagree, but was not referring to you.
I know you weren't. You were referring to everyone who believes Zimmerman might be guilty. You're right and they're stupid. It's the same limited thinking that always gets you criticized. You never consider that you might be wrong, and I'll continue to point it out until you learn to think critically rather than emotionally.