Atheistforums.com

I would be interested to hear everyones thoughts on this case. Have you changed your mind after some time to think, or do you feel the same way?

Has it really been a year already?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a good amount of evidence surface that showed Martin was actually attacking the guy? Not saying he should've shot him dead, but the media was so quick to call it a case of racism and were so quick to get sympathy for the kid, they really jumped the gun.

Again, not saying anything he did was justified. Just saying, the news likes to jump to conclusions, and the millions of people taking in everything the news says without an opinion of their own will jump to the same ones.

I think Zimmerman overreacted, likely because of his own preconceived notions, and though I wasn't a member here a  year ago, my views were essentially the same.

I know no more about the case than i did a year ago. And my only knowledge of the case a year ago is what I got via the press. Which is to say that I didn't have enough actual facts to form a valid opinion then and I still don't now.

I actually saw an interview with his brother today (was a few weeks old though) where he pointed out than Zimmerman is hispanic, not white. Quite irrelevant to me mind you, but it did seem like everyone was going after him for being a white man shooting a black teen. It could obviously still have been racism however, not like hispanics aren't capable of that, I'm just amused by the extreme focus on race Americans seem to have.

I don't know what happened, but considering the amount of murder cases in the US I don't think it should have gotten this much press. Will be really hard to find an unbiased jury now.

Whether he's guilty or not, the prosecutor sure has come off looking like an idiot.

I don't, and never did, think it was a direct act of racism ("gosh, I hate black folk.  Hey, look, there's one now.  I should go shoot him".)

I think the racism comes in from profiling ("I've got a black kid in a hoodie in a somewhat affluent neighborhood.  He doesn't belong here.")

I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the racism comes in from profiling ("I've got a black kid in a hoodie in a somewhat affluent neighborhood.  He doesn't belong here.")

This is the way I see it. I believe Zimmerman started following and harassing Martin just because of such profiling. Martin then confronted the guy, and may well have attacked him and knocked him to the ground, though there were no reliable witnesses to that supposition.

My initial problem with the case had nothing to do with race. It was that Zimmerman had been arrested and then simply let go. As a suspect in a fatal shooting, he should have been detained.

I'm also suspicious about how some of the photographic evidence of Zimmerman's head wound came out months later.

(I was also struck by how, in all the forums I read, all the known racists immediately came out in Zimmerman's defense, whereas the rational people were saying we need to gather more evidence.)

I remember it being reported that Zimmerman called the police about seeing someone suspicious and he was told not to pursue or approach the person. It would seem that he ignored those instructions. If that is true, I think I might find that very compelling in deciding whether or not his self defense claim had any merit.

A. He stalked an innocent kid.
B. He was told not to by police.
C. He is only 25% Hispanic, so he would most likely be majority white.(irrelevant)
D. The evidence of a fight is sketchy as hell.
E. He had a history of calling the cops on black kids for no reason.

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

Quote from: "Atheon"My initial problem with the case had nothing to do with race. It was that Zimmerman had been arrested and then simply let go. As a suspect in a fatal shooting, he should have been detained.

I absolutely agree.  I don't know  whether a crime occurred that night or not, but I know for a fact that Zimmerman was given inappropriately lenient treatment.

Quote from: "Johan"I remember it being reported that Zimmerman called the police about seeing someone suspicious and he was told not to pursue or approach the person. It would seem that he ignored those instructions. If that is true, I think I might find that very compelling in deciding whether or not his self defense claim had any merit.

Not only that: the Neighborhood Watch training he'd been through specifically emphasizes the instruction to not take any action towards confronting any suspect.  The training he received specifically instructed him to call the police and await their response.  To not have done that, and then to disregard the instructions of the dispatcher as well, will go hard on him in court, I think.

Quote from: "Shiranu"A. He stalked an innocent kid.
B. He was told not to by police.
C. He is only 25% Hispanic, so he would most likely be majority white.(irrelevant)
D. The evidence of a fight is sketchy as hell.
E. He had a history of calling the cops on black kids for no reason.

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

None of that is established.

A. Says you.
B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.
C. Irrelevant
D. Zimmerman had visible bruises and a broken nose.
E. Calling the cops on black kids has no bearing on whether or not he would murder one in cold blood.

Shiranu you represent the most common thoughts of Zimmerman guilt advocates,  for lack of a better term. Your reasoning is plagued with emotion and has no regard for legal realities. Worse, it doesn't address the elephant in the room which is that nobody knows what happened besides Zimmerman. If Treyvon were white I have a stong feeling a lot of people who share your opinion would be saying that Zimmerman should never have been charged due to a lack of evidence.

Any conviction of Zimmerman will be based on pure circumstance, and that is not how the law should be exercised. Especially in a murder trial.

QuoteNone of that is established.

A. Says you.
B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.
C. Irrelevant
D. Zimmerman had visible bruises and a broken nose.
E. Calling the cops on black kids has no bearing on whether or not he would murder one in cold blood.

A. Says George Zimmerman. Unless admitting on a phone call that you are following an unarmed, law-abiding citizen while you yourself are packing heat is no longer an admission that you stalked someone.

B. "I'm not a member of the police force, I just work for the police department by working directly with police officers after being trained by the PD to work with the officers."

Their paycheck is made out by the police department and they relay information to and from officers to a caller after being trained by the police. Sorry, but I consider that part of the law enforcement branch and thus their voice carries more weight than if a regular civilian had told him not to.

If it was a janitor or trash collector that might be relevant, but as it stands that is one hell of a piss-poor defense.

And that is such a piss poor defense anyways...

QuoteD. Zimmerman had visible bruises and a broken nose.

Still sketchy on how long it took that to be stated.

But to quote C, irrelevant. You started the confrontation by stalking a kid, and you escalated it by pulling a gun on him. Even if he DID get in a fight and got his ass handed to him, he is still in the wrong.

QuoteE. Calling the cops on black kids has no bearing on whether or not he would murder one in cold blood.

No, but if you don't want race to be an issue in your trial you should try not to make it an issue on who you harass.

QuoteShiranu you represent the most common thoughts of Zimmerman guilt advocates, for lack of a better term. Your reasoning is plagued with emotion and has no regard for legal realities.

Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.

QuoteWorse, it doesn't address the elephant in the room which is that nobody knows what happened besides Zimmerman.

That elephant in the room exists with a good number of murders, but we don't make it an issue then.

QuoteIf Treyvon were white I have a stong feeling a lot of people who share your opinion would be saying that Zimmerman should never have been charged due to a lack of evidence.

Actually, no one would have ever known about it... it only got media attention because Treyvon was black.

And I doubt it, since we have concrete evidence he stalked an unarmed kid by HIS OWN ADMISSION, and the scene backs that up.

QuoteAny conviction of Zimmerman will be based on pure circumstance, and that is not how the law should be exercised. Especially in a murder trial.

We better let a shitload of murderers out of jail then...

Quote from: "Shiranu"A. He stalked an innocent kid.
B. He was told not to by police.
C. He is only 25% Hispanic, so he would most likely be majority white.(irrelevant)
D. The evidence of a fight is sketchy as hell.
E. He had a history of calling the cops on black kids for no reason.

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

:wtf: "Lack of evidence of him being innocent"? Did you fucking drink your brains for breakfast? Ever heard of "[blink:1855gbv0]innocent until proven guilty[/blink:1855gbv0]"?

I'm the first one to say that this whole story has many obscure details, but the above comment is just...wow!

Quote from: "Shiranu"A. He stalked an innocent kid.
B. He was told not to by police.
C. He is only 25% Hispanic, so he would most likely be majority white.(irrelevant)
D. The evidence of a fight is sketchy as hell.
E. He had a history of calling the cops on black kids for no reason.

Given the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

It's the other way around, you're innocent until proven guilty.

What I think is that the media grabbed on to this and turned it into a circus.  If Zimmerman was black, or Martin was latino, this would not have gone to trial and we wouldn't even know who these people were.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.

First of all no one is saying he was ordered to do anything. He was advised not to follow. The reason this could become significant is because he is, or at least was (I'm not sure what he's doing now), trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting. Kind of hard to argue that you were just 'standing your ground' when you had to keep moving your ground in order to follow someone whom a police dispatcher advised you not to follow in the first place.

I'm still interested to see what a jury decides on this.

Quote from: "Shiranu"A. Says George Zimmerman. Unless admitting on a phone call that you are following an unarmed, law-abiding citizen while you yourself are packing heat is no longer an admission that you stalked someone.

I object to the use of the word stalk. To use that word instead of "follow" is meaningful. It shows that you believe that his intent was to track Martin down and execute him. THAT is what has not been established.

Quote from: "Shiranu"B. "I'm not a member of the police force, I just work for the police department by working directly with police officers after being trained by the PD to work with the officers."

Their paycheck is made out by the police department and they relay information to and from officers to a caller after being trained by the police. Sorry, but I consider that part of the law enforcement branch and thus their voice carries more weight than if a regular civilian had told him not to.

If it was a janitor or trash collector that might be relevant, but as it stands that is one hell of a piss-poor defense.

And that is such a piss poor defense anyways...

The police did not order him to do anything. "We don't need you to do that" is NOT and order, and the 911 dispatcher is NOT a police officer. PERIOD.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Still sketchy on how long it took that to be stated.

But to quote C, irrelevant. You started the confrontation by stalking a kid, and you escalated it by pulling a gun on him. Even if he DID get in a fight and got his ass handed to him, he is still in the wrong.

And here is more evidence of your prejudice, acting as if you know what happened in that alley. There is no evidence that Zimmerman started any fight and the fact that he is all fucked up actually indicates otherwise. How does a grown man with a weapon supposedly stalking an unarmed "kid" end up with even a single mark on him let alone a broken nose?

Quote from: "Shiranu"Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.

WTF are you on about? This is about whether or not you are looking at this from a rational perspective. You are acting as if a large number of key things are true when they have yet to be established. That is not a rational point of view. If you value emotion above rationality then your evaluation of the situation is worthless.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Actually, no one would have ever known about it... it only got media attention because Treyvon was black.

And I doubt it, since we have concrete evidence he stalked an unarmed kid by HIS OWN ADMISSION, and the scene backs that up.

No it doesn't. Thats your interpretation of what happened. The fact that you continue to use the word stalk instead of follow shows your ongoing bias in this case. Zimmerman never said "I stalked that kid so I could murder him" so stop fucking pretending he did.

Quote from: "Shiranu"We better let a shitload of murderers out of jail then...

Not that his has anything to do with the topic, but I agree. When you eliminate the necessity of concrete evidence to convict someone of murder you open the door to wrongful convictions. Its up to you. Are you willing to put innocent people in prison so you can feel sure you got all the guilty ones? If yes, I sure hope neither you nor anyone you know ends up being wrongfully convicted of murder based on nothing more than circumstance. Its always so easy to make the thoughtless decision when you don't feel like the consequences could ever touch your life.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.

First of all no one is saying he was ordered to do anything. He was advised not to follow. The reason this could become significant is because he is, or at least was (I'm not sure what he's doing now), trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting. Kind of hard to argue that you were just 'standing your ground' when you had to keep moving your ground in order to follow someone whom a police dispatcher advised you not to follow in the first place.

I'm still interested to see what a jury decides on this.

Basically this. I remember on CF one of George's ardent supporters said "There was no evidence at all that Zimmerman followed Martin." Of course when it did come out that he followed Martin, ardent supporter (hereby known as Tickleshits) said "well he had every right to be where he was."

Except it doesn't hold up to "Stand your grand."
Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

QuoteI object to the use of the word stalk. To use that word instead of "follow" is meaningful. It shows that you believe that his intent was to track Martin down and execute him. THAT is what has not been established.

Actually no, it is meaningful in that it shows I have a better grasp of the English langauge than you apparently.

Quotestalking  present participle of stalk (Verb)

1.Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
2.Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".

To an extent it fits the first, but it also fits the second in that he was harassing someone who was doing nothing unlawful and was advised to cease doing so by the police dispatcher.

As for implying it has to do with me believing he was, "...tracking Martin down and execute him" , only continues to reveal your bias that you have decided that Zimmerman is clearly innocent and you can only persecute this poor man because you are a bleeding heart liberal or some other wacky reason you have come up with.

QuoteThe police did not order him to do anything. "We don't need you to do that" is NOT and order, and the 911 dispatcher is NOT a police officer. PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but if the best defense is, "A representative of the police department told you not to do something, but it wasn't an order!", then you have lost this point already, and anyone without a pro-Zimmerman bias will recognize that.

QuoteAnd here is more evidence of your prejudice, acting as if you know what happened in that alley. There is no evidence that Zimmerman started any fight and the fact that he is all fucked up actually indicates otherwise. How does a grown man with a weapon supposedly stalking an unarmed "kid" end up with even a single mark on him let alone a broken nose?

My bias... right.

"Hey, police dispatch... I am stalking this kid!"
"We don't need you to do that."
"OH MY GOD THE KID IS ATTACKING ME ARGUHAWTGH!!! Better shoot him, because I stalked him to the point he either attacked me (best case scenario for Zimmerman), or I decided to confront him directly!"

Are you fucking implying that Martin was the aggressor? If I was to start stalking you, and you confronted me, I would therefor have the right to murder you if you confronted me? I'm sorry, the stalker is the aggressor. Period.

QuoteWTF are you on about? This is about whether or not you are looking at this from a rational perspective. You are acting as if a large number of key things are true when they have yet to be established. That is not a rational point of view. If you value emotion above rationality then your evaluation of the situation is worthless.

I know several facts thanks to George Zimmerman's admission to stalking Treyvon. I know that an armed, grown man was harassing a young, unarmed kid, and that harassment led to said young kid being murdered.

Now, if Treyvon started the fight, maybe Zimmerman should get a reduced jail sentence. But as it stands we know Zimmerman harassed and stalked an unarmed kid, and then murdered said kid. Maybe in Somalia that isn't illegal, but I like to think in the United States that if you start a violent confrontation there is legal repercussions.

QuoteNo it doesn't. Thats your interpretation of what happened. The fact that you continue to use the word stalk instead of follow shows your ongoing bias in this case. Zimmerman never said "I stalked that kid so I could murder him" so stop fucking pretending he did.

A. See definition of stalk above.
B. You are the only motherfucker in here saying that Zimmerman stalked him so he could murder him. Got something you want to get off your chest?

Edit: Ooo, I almost forgot... you seem to be under the impression that if Zimmerman is convicted, it is only because of circumstancial, liberal-bias ruling. Please, tell me how that isn't biased? At least I am willing to admit I have some bias in the case (thinking it was racially motivated, that Zimmerman most likely directly confronted Treyvon instead of Treyvon calling Zimmerman on his shit)... what is your excuse?

Living here I have heard nothing but conjecture from the press either way..

I have come to a few conclusions.. Zimmerman is not a racist.. He TOTALLY  screwed himself when he got out of the car after being told not to..!!!  Moron...
And yes he  WAY "overreacted"..!! Bit of a vigilante complex going there..

My guess if I were a betting woman,.. is that he'll get involuntary manslaughter..

I haven't changed my opinion. Zimmerman may not be an outright racist, but he was engaging in racial profiling. The neighborhood is small, like 4 streets total, and this self-important douchebag sees a black kid in a hoodie and thinks "gangsta." Of course, since Martin was visiting his Dad's fiance, Brandi Green, who is a black woman, there must have been at least one black family in the neighborhood - probably more. It's not like this was some lily-white neighborhood where a black teen would stand out as someone who "doesn't belong" - Zimmerman was simply being an arrogant shit.

The 911 call makes it pretty clear that Zimmerman was profiling Martin. The moment Zimmerman got out of his truck and went after Martin on foot (after being told not to by a professional employee of the police department), Zimmerman was playing the part of a vigilante. Following someone with a pistol and playing cop is not "standing your ground," it's "looking for trouble." Even Florida isn't dumb enough to pass a "look for trouble" law.

Vigilantism should not be encouraged. Zimmerman should do time for manslaughter.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Actually no, it is meaningful in that it shows I have a better grasp of the English langauge than you apparently.

Oh so I shouldn't read anything into the fact that you decided to use the word stalk instead of follow? Seems legit.

Private Investigators follow people. Murderers and psychos stalk people. One of the definitions of the word stalk is to hunt someone. Your selection of the word stalk has meaning.  Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Quote from: "Shiranu"As for implying it has to do with me believing he was, "...tracking Martin down and execute him" , only continues to reveal your bias that you have decided that Zimmerman is clearly innocent and you can only persecute this poor man because you are a bleeding heart liberal or some other wacky reason you have come up with.

What I have decided is that the evidence available so far is insufficient to convict him.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I'm sorry, but if the best defense is, "A representative of the police department told you not to do something, but it wasn't an order!", then you have lost this point already, and anyone without a pro-Zimmerman bias will recognize that.

I think if you need to even include this issue as part of your list of reasons he is guilty you have already lost. The fact that you treat it as significant does nothing more than highlight your inability to difinitively show Zimmerman committing premeditated murder based on solid evidence.

Quote from: "Shiranu"My bias... right.

"Hey, police dispatch... I am stalking this kid!"
"We don't need you to do that."
"OH MY GOD THE KID IS ATTACKING ME ARGUHAWTGH!!! Better shoot him, because I stalked him to the point he either attacked me (best case scenario for Zimmerman), or I decided to confront him directly!"

Are you fucking implying that Martin was the aggressor? If I was to start stalking you, and you confronted me, I would therefor have the right to murder you if you confronted me? I'm sorry, the stalker is the aggressor. Period.

If Martin jumped him you better fucking believe martin is the aggressor. Someone following you isnt a good enough reason to jump them. If you make the first violent action YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR. And just so we are clear, following someone might be some sort of assault in whatever world you live in but here on Earth it is nothing of the sort.

If Martin jumped him, then as soon as he did Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with whatever means he had available.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I know several facts thanks to George Zimmerman's admission to stalking Treyvon. I know that an armed, grown man was harassing a young, unarmed kid, and that harassment led to said young kid being murdered.

Now, if Treyvon started the fight, maybe Zimmerman should get a reduced jail sentence. But as it stands we know Zimmerman harassed and stalked an unarmed kid, and then murdered said kid. Maybe in Somalia that isn't illegal, but I like to think in the United States that if you start a violent confrontation there is legal repercussions.

I absolutely reject your assertion that Zimmerman is responsible for any assault on his person for following Trayvon for many reasons, not the least of which is that it creates an impractical legal situation wherein people can jump other people and then claim they did it because that person was following them. Thats what happens when you make being followed an acceptable reason for violence.

Moreover, Zimmerman is well within his rights to follow anyone he fucking pleases on a public street.

Next, what you're essentially saying here is that if someone jumps you and you win the fight by killing them you should go to jail. Cool story.

Its absolutely RIDICULOUS to set a standard of law that expects the victim to show regard for the welfare of his attacker.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Ooo, I almost forgot... you seem to be under the impression that if Zimmerman is convicted, it is only because of circumstancial, liberal-bias ruling. Please, tell me how that isn't biased? At least I am willing to admit I have some bias in the case (thinking it was racially motivated, that Zimmerman most likely directly confronted Treyvon instead of Treyvon calling Zimmerman on his shit)... what is your excuse?

The difference between us is that I havent arrived at a conclusion beyond the fact that there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to uphold a version of events like the one you have put forth.

Quote from: "Savior2006"Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

+1

My summation is near-identical.  Zimmerman pursues Martin despite being told by dispatch not to.  There is a confrontation.  Martin feels threatened (evidently, for good reason) and reacts as one might expect.  Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

Boneheaded vigilantism.  Senseless death.  And most assuredly, not a legitimate case of stand-your-ground self-defense at all.

Throughout this entire case, I cannot remember having an opinion about guilt or innocence at any time.  The whole thing struck me as a circus, right from the first news report that I saw, which was clearly setting up an agenda of its own before the facts were known.  I wasn't there.  I don't know the people involved.  My only source is the media.  The media gets facts wrong.  It sensationalizes.  It is biased.  

I remember the media first playing the racism angle (white guy attacks perfectly innocent black kid with model behavior), and I thought, "Yeah, maybe, but the media can't be trusted.  Then I remember the media reporting the kid as a possible delinquent, and I thought, "Yeah, maybe. Who knows?"

The media reported things without fact checking:  "Family says this.  Lawyer says that."  Yeah OK those sources did say that, but as far as accurate information is concerned, what reason is there to base opinions on such biased sources, or even fucking report them?"  

As things unfolded, I remember thinking no one will ever have access to the truth, including jurors.  Judges will disallow testimony.  Lawyers will showboat, and the media will develop angles.  No one will ever know for sure what happened that day.

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "Savior2006"Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

+1

My summation is near-identical.  Zimmerman pursues Martin despite being told by dispatch not to.  There is a confrontation.  Martin feels threatened (evidently, for good reason) and reacts as one might expect.  Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

Boneheaded vigilantism.  Senseless death.  And most assuredly, not a legitimate case of stand-your-ground self-defense at all.

One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?

This version of events doesn't add up in my mind. I don't see the evidence to support it. Zimmerman following Martin isn't enough. I want Zimmerman cornering a Martin who tried to escape and then callously executing him. Nobody can give me that. None of you can say truthfully that this is what happened for certain. Every likely scenario points to martin being aggressive at some point to trigger the events.

I don't know what happened. Only 2 people do, and one of them is dead. If I put myself in trayvon's shoes, some guy is following me, gets out of his vehicle and approaches me, I know that I am doing nothing wrong, Instead of flight, which might make me look guilty, as in why did you run if you weren't doing anything wrong? I choose to turn and confront this person, as in, why are you following me, the situation escalates into a fight, Zimmerman is getting his ass handed to him, pulls his gun, and kills the kid. If Zimmerman had followed ANY kind of protocol for dealing with this, it would never have happened.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?

Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

QuoteThis version of events doesn't add up in my mind. I don't see the evidence to support it. Zimmerman following Martin isn't enough. I want Zimmerman cornering a Martin who tried to escape and then callously executing him.

That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

QuoteEvery likely scenario points to martin being aggressive at some point to trigger the events.

Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

Quote from: "Davka"Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

Someone perhaps confident enough he could attack another person and win?

Either way this is all presumption, and one based i think on stereotype. I was an average teenager once. I was in shape and had a lot of confidence. But I wasnt a complete moron, and it takes a complete moron to confront someone at night who you think has been following you.

By the way from what I have read Zimmermans weapon was in a holster on his belt. When Zimmerman spoke to him earlier I don't see how martin could have failed to notice it. If he did notice it then he becomes someone with a deathwish rather than an overconfident moron.

Quote from: "Davka"That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

Thats what murder is. If you want Zimmerman convicted of murder you are saying you believe he intentionally hunted martin and then shot him.

Quote from: "Davka"Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

What do you mean by pick a fight? Following someone is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Being an asshole is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Not even being a RACIST is good enough. You say pick a fight, my requirement is that he START a fight. Thats what being the agressor means. You make the first violent move. Following someone down the street or racially profiling them is not VIOLENCE.

Whoever turned the situation violent is the one responsible for the outcome. ALL of it.

If Martin hadn't begun a physical altercation with Zimmerman (assuming thats what happened) he would still be alive today. Its as simple as that.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Davka"Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

Someone perhaps confident enough he could attack another person and win?

Either way this is all presumption, and one based i think on stereotype. I was an average teenager once. I was in shape and had a lot of confidence. But I wasnt a complete moron, and it takes a complete moron to confront someone at night who you think has been following you.

That sounds a whole lot like uninformed speculation.

When I was 19, I hitchhiked across the USA. I spent some time in New Orleans, playing music on the streets and sleeping in abandoned homes. One night on the way 'home' at around 3 AM, I became aware that someone was following me. As I saw it, I had three choices: Ignore him and hope I could get where I was going before he caught up; run, and hope he wasn't a good runner; or turn and confront him. Confrontation seemed like the best bet. That's what I chose.

It worked.

QuoteBy the way from what I have read Zimmermans weapon was in a holster on his belt.

It was in a shoulder holster, concealed. It only became visible when the two were rolling around on the ground.

Quote

Quote from: "Davka"That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

Thats what murder is. If you want Zimmerman convicted of murder you are saying you believe he intentionally hunted martin and then shot him.

That's what first degree murder is. AFAIK, nobody here has accused Zimmerman of first degree murder.

"Murder (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

"The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

   1 Intent to kill,
   2 Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
   3 Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
   4 Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine)."

"First degree (//http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070529183940AALPRIN): killing with the intent to kill. Usually requires premeditation. Also includes felony murder - an unplanned murder that occurs during the commission of a felony (example is defendant burglarizes a house and during the burglary kills the homeowner - no premeditation but committed during a felony).

"Second degree: killing with the intent to do harm but not the intent to kill. Example - shooting someone in the leg with the intent to wound but not kill, and the victim bleeds to death.

"Third degree: killing that resulted from indifference or negligence. Usually there must be a legal duty (parent - child), but can also include crimes like driving drunk and causing a fatal accident.

"Fourth degree: felony murder committed by an accomplice. Same as felony murder, but instead of one burglar there are two. Burglar A kills the homeowner and that is first degree murder. Burglar B did not take part in the killing but did take part in the burglary and that is fourth degree."

Google is your friend.  :-D

Quote from: "Davka"Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

QuoteWhat do you mean by pick a fight? Following someone is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

That's your opinion. Next time someone starts following you through back alleys on a dark night, remember that they're not being confrontational. Or so you claim.

QuoteWhoever turned the situation violent is the one responsible for the outcome. ALL of it.

Following someone through back alleys with a concealed weapon is, in my book, turning a situation violent.

QuoteIf Martin hadn't begun a physical altercation with Zimmerman (assuming thats what happened) he would still be alive today. Its as simple as that.

That's arguable. Zimmerman was obviously paranoid, had a history of vigilantism, and was out looking for trouble. He found it. What would have happened if Martin had simply told him to fuck off is unknowable. That Zimmerman should not have been following anyone through dark alleys at night while carrying a concealed weapon is inarguable. That Zimmerman shot Martin deliberately, with the intent to do bodily harm, is inarguable. That Zimmerman deliberately placed himself in harm's way against the strong advice of the 911 dispatcher is inarguable.

It should be noted that this wasn't a "dark alley".  This was a broad, open walkway between two rows of condominiums:

(//http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/street-view-overhead1.jpg)

(//http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/site-of-shooting.jpg)

Not trying to be persnickety, but "dark alley" conjures up an image of Brooklyn tenements and shooting galleries in my own head.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It should be noted that this wasn't a "dark alley".  This was a broad, open walkway between two rows of condominiums:
Not trying to be persnickety, but "dark alley" conjures up an image of Brooklyn tenements and shooting galleries in my own head.

Point taken - it wasn't a narrow space between tenements.

It was, however, both dark and off of the paved road. And Zimmerman was very obviously following Martin, giving him reason to be fearful and defensive - especially after Zimmerman got out of his truck and began stalking Martin on foot.

If it's dark and someone is obviously following me in a vehicle and then, when I leave the paved road, gets out to follow me on foot, I'm going to assume they are either a cop or a robber. If it's dark and they don't identify themselves, the suspicion that they are a robber increases. If I'm a black kid in a racist area and the stalker is not black, the probability that they are looking for trouble skyrockets.

Understood.  I'm not trying to advance any argument by making the point -- just wanting to make the circumstance clear.

This has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"This has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

Your right, we won't have any common ground... because stalking innocent people with a gun is unacceptable in the modern world.

If you dont think you would be suspicious when, in the middle of the night, a person is stalking you... are you going to fucking think, "Oh, golly gee! This guy must want to meet me really bad, I bet he is going to come and hug me!"

No, your going to fucking be like, "Oh shit, I am about to get mugged (or worse).".

But no, the black guy has to always be the criminal. Treyvon instigated the confrontation with the guy stalking him, so he DESERVED IT. And if he had run, Zimmerman would have most likely shot him in the back, because he is the unoffical cop of this town.

Don't fucking talk to me like you have respect for the law when you want to defend this vigilante shit stain.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"This has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

Your right, we won't have any common ground... because stalking innocent people with a gun is unacceptable in the modern world.

And in the modern world you are absolved of responsibility if you attack someone who turns out to be better armed than you are.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?

There is only one living person who knows whether Martin actually turned around and confronted Zimmerman. And since that person has a vested interest in seeing Zimmerman found not guilty, I don't know that I'd be inclined to take his word for it.


EDIT FOR: Typed on a tablet

"One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?"

Who does that are women like me who were taught that if we thought we were being followed by someone to first change direction.. and if they continue to follow you turn and confront them.. You are less likely to be attacked if your "Follower/stalker" knows you are aware of them..

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"This has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

Your right, we won't have any common ground... because stalking innocent people with a gun is unacceptable in the modern world.

And in the modern world you are absolved of responsibility if you attack someone who turns out to be better armed than you are.

This is the point at which everything becomes pure speculation. We don't know what happened when Martin decided to ask Zimmerman why he was acting like a stalker. We don't know how belligerent Zimmerman was, or how belligerent Martin was. All we know is that a self-appointed policeman with a history of arrogance and confrontation shot a 17-year-old kid, who is no longer around to tell his side of the story.

We do have the 911 call from Zimmerman, which gives a window into Zimmerman's state of mind at the time, and we have a history of complaints from neighborhood residents that Zimmerman often overstepped his authority. We have Zimmerman's lengthy history of acting like a wannabe cop. We have Zimmerman's deliberate disobeying of the 911 dispatcher's strong advice, and his outright lie that he was getting out of his truck "to read a street sign" (anybody see any street signs in that grassy area between the buildings?)

But we don't know who swung first, or what was said before the fight broke out. We have only the word of a man who has a very strong motive to paint the encounter as self-defense against an unprovoked attack.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"This has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

Your right, we won't have any common ground... because stalking innocent people with a gun is unacceptable in the modern world.

And in the modern world you are absolved of responsibility if you attack someone who turns out to be better armed than you are.

Who the fuck is saying that? Seriously? Who the fuck is saying that?

You whine and bitch about this argument being tiresome, but all you do is throw strawman after strawman out and keep your head so fucking far up your ass.

If it was proven Zimmerman had no intention of stalking Treyvon and hadn't shot him, and that Zimmerman did not initate confrontation but Treyvon, than Treyvon should have certainly been charged with assault. No one is fucking denying that, infact that has been brought up already.

But thats not what fucking happened. Treyvon was stalked, unnecessary confrontation was started BY ZIMMERMAN by pursing Treyvon (after being told not to by police dispatch), physical confrontation was started by one of the two parties (you instantly assume it was Treyvon, I say it could have been either party... but its ME who has the bias), and Zimmerman murdered a teenager who he stalked.

So don't give me this bullshit strawman about how we want Treyvon to have been absolved of all guilt, how we have a bias towards him, when you have decided that Zimmerman is the god-damn Jesus reincarnate who couldn't have done anything wrong. Your entire argument has been based on the premise that Zimmerman is 100% innocent despite the self-admission that he stalked an unarmed teenager and thus is the one who created the situation.

If Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive. So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

Quote from: "Shiranu"If Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive. So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

Word!

This is, in essence, a religious debate.  There's a shitload of a priori reasoning going on, a shitload of evacuated-middle, a shitload of political spin-cycle.

This thread is fucking priceless. People who werent there concocting and constructing a hypothetical version of events in their minds solely from what they have been exposed to in the media, in order to justify their 20/20 hindsight notions and opinions of the hypothetical events.

The best part is these same people arguing vehemently that everyone else should construct the same hypothetical version of events as they have based solely on what we have been exposed to in the media.

"If" this and "if" that... GMAFB

/unsubscribe

Quote from: "Jmpty"I would be interested to hear everyones thoughts on this case. Have you changed your mind after some time to think, or do you feel the same way?

And now you know.  Our views haven't changed and we're even more prickish and judgmental in disagreeing with each other this time around.  Progress!   :D/

Quote from: "Shiranu"all you do is throw strawman after strawman out and keep your head so fucking far up your ass.

Quote from: "Shiranu"So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

Comedy gold.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"all you do is throw strawman after strawman out and keep your head so fucking far up your ass.

Quote from: "Shiranu"So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

Comedy gold.

Well, Irony Gold, maybe.  :-?

Ironic or not, how is Zimmerman arguably innocent, given...

QuoteIf Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive. So dont give me this bullshit how Zimmerman was a saint who did nothing wrong.

...but no, you throw strawmen around... OH THATS PERFECTLY OKAY. But if someone else uses something called hyperbole (not a strawman), holy fucking shit.

Unless, "If Zimmerman is found guilty, its only because of circumstancial evidence imo" or, "LOLNO, TREYVON STARTED THE FIGHT!!! !LOLOLOL HOW DARE YOU CONFRONT SOMEONE FOR STALKING YOU!" is no longer saying, "I don't believe he did anything wrong", in which case fuck me, right?

But either way, the bold is reality as presented by Zimmerman & a recorded conversation, so I really could give a rat's ass what a murder defending shit stain and whiny crybaby like yourself has to say about this case. You sure want to dish it but you sure cry like a bitch when ever anyone so much as looks at you...

You are confusing doing something wrong with doing something that's illegal, and even if there was a correalation you are further confusing doing something illegal with being entirely responsible and punishible for murder. You are also showing a disgusting amount of disrespect for the justice system and anything remotely close to due process.

You are the one strawmanning people because apparantly thinking that the matter is unsettled or that there's a chance Zimmerman wasn't entirely responsible for what happened equalls thinking Zimmerman is a saint ...

This is a questionable case with many unknowns, and evidence supporting that he, at least to some degree, could have been acting in self defense.

Let's actually see what the investigation and trial will turn out rather than judging people on unsubstansiated evidence, and wanting them to rot in jail without trial.

QuoteYou are confusing doing something wrong with doing something that's illegal, and even if there was a correalation you are further confusing doing something illegal with being entirely responsible and punishible for murder. You are also showing a disgusting amount of disrespect for the justice system and anything remotely close to due process.

I'm sorry, but if you are responsible for instigating a situation which leads in someone's death, then you ARE responsible (to an extent) for that person's death. I am not saing he needs to be charged with the highest form of manslaughter and face the death penalty, but his actions are clearly corelated to Treyvon being dead; actions that if he hadn't taken and if he had followed the police dispatcher's orders, would mean Treyvon would be alive today.

The justice system is here to protect people, and if vigilantes are allowed to stalk and harass people in the middle of the night and walk away scott free then the justice system doesn't work and needs to be disrespected. I see no reason to respect a broken system.

QuoteYou are the one strawmanning people because apparantly thinking that the matter is unsettled or that there's a chance Zimmerman wasn't entirely responsible for what happened equalls thinking Zimmerman is a saint ...

Again, the saint comment was hyperbole, not strawman. And I have never claimed that I think Zimmerman was entirely responsible, infact in my last couple of points I have pointed out the only one saying that was Nonsensei. I do think he is responsible for starting the entire situation in the first place, but as for physical confrontation I do think Treyvon might have been guilty of that.

QuoteThis is a questionable case with many unknowns, and evidence supporting that he, at least to some degree, could have been acting in self defense.

Self defense after provking a confrontation, yes I agree. Nevertheless if you provoke a fight, and then you escalate it, then you are still guilty (this doesn't mean the other party is innocent either, both parties can be found guilty of different laws).

QuoteLet's actually see what the investigation and trial will turn out rather than judging people on unsubstansiated evidence, and wanting them to rot in jail without trial.

I am only judging him on one bit of info; the fact that he admitted he was stalking Treyvon, continued to do so after police dispatch told him to stop, and for whatever reason got out of his truck where Treyvon would even be able to beat him. That is not unsubstansiated evidence, that comes from direct admission from Zimmerman and his phone call to the police.

And who has said they want to see him rot in jail, and even moreso without a trial? What I want is to be sure that I can walk out on the street, and if someone is stalking me with a gun and we get in a confrontation he doesn't have the legal right to kill me. As for Zimmerman, I don't think he had intent to kill Treyvon (untill the fight) so I don't see why he should spend the rest of his life in jail... maybe a certain amount of time, yes, but it wasn't like it was a premeditated murder. And no one has said anything about there being no trial, so I don't even know where you get that...

Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

I disagree in this case it was a strawman.

By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

If that is a strawman it is one of the most mild ones I have seen in a while. Additionally, given the fact that he has used numerous strawmen with far worse implications (that I think assault is acceptable, etc.), I see no reason to point out my percieved strawman over his. Expecially considering he has persisted in using them after being explained that. no, that's not what we believe and that they again have far worse implications than over-exagerating the fact that he finds Zimmerman's actions acceptable.

Quote from: "Shiranu"And who has said they want to see him rot in jail, and even moreso without a trial?

You said it. (//http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=923069#p923069)

QuoteOh, I didn't realize I was a judge. If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.

Hang your head in shame.

QuoteHang your head in shame.

Fuck you are dense. I don't know if you realize this, but it was SARCASM. It was a stab at the fact that he was acting like I think myself the judge and have the right to do anything and everything I want.

I realize this is the internet, but the snarkiness in that comment should have been more than just a modest bit obvious.

Let me make it more obvious.

QuoteOh, I didn't realize I was a judge. :roll:If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.:roll:

Come on now... I know, I know I am the big bad terrible person, but if you are so intent on trying to get me on an, "Gotcha!" moment like that, you are going to have to try a bit harder.

Quote from: "Shiranu"By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

Actually what i said was

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Any conviction of Zimmerman will be based on pure circumstance, and that is not how the law should be exercised. Especially in a murder trial.

And I thought it was pretty clear that I meant that if he is convicted with the evidence the public has available - in other words no direct evidence of what happened during the shooting - then there has been a miscarriage of justice.

I know thats what I meant since right before that line i said:

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Worse, it doesn't address the elephant in the room which is that nobody knows what happened besides Zimmerman.

You are taking liberties with how you interpret my words in an attempt to paint me as something. I am not entirely sure what but I do know its an attempt to dismiss my opinion without defeating it.

QuoteAnd I thought it was pretty clear that I meant that if he is convicted with the evidence the public has available - in other words no direct evidence of what happened during the shooting - then there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Except it wouldn't, given the fact we concretely know...

QuoteIf Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive.

...if the law is here to protect citizens, then given that evidence Zimmerman IS guilty of a certain level of causing this entire situation and thus is partially legally responsible for Treyvon's death. I don't personally believe he had intent to kill Treyvon until the time of conflict so I don't think he deserves life in prison or anything of the sort, but this entire situation is based on Zimmerman's actions and he must be held responsible for it.

If the law does not find him guilty of anything for this, then it means the law is broken and has no intention of protecting its citizens, ergo void of any justification to respect it.

QuoteYou are taking liberties with how you interpret my words in an attempt to paint me as something. I am not entirely sure what but I do know its an attempt to dismiss my opinion without defeating it.

Your right. You are absolutely right. It is me atempting to dismiss your opinion without defending it. That's why I have addressed your points and why I disagree with them. I am clearly arguing with a genius here...

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteHang your head in shame.

Fuck you are dense. I don't know if you realize this, but it was SARCASM. It was a stab at the fact that he was acting like I think myself the judge and have the right to do anything and everything I want.

I realize this is the internet, but the snarkiness in that comment should have been more than just a modest bit obvious.

Let me make it more obvious.

QuoteOh, I didn't realize I was a judge. :roll:If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.:roll:

Come on now... I know, I know I am the big bad terrible person, but if you are so intent on trying to get me on an, "Gotcha!" moment like that, you are going to have to try a bit harder.

Nice try, but no cigar. You also said this: (//http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=923042#p923042)

QuoteGiven the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

You display the same vigilante mentality you ascribe to Zimmermann.

Oh and no, I don't consider you a big bad terrible person. More like a whiny, frustrated little boy.

QuoteGiven the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

QuoteYou display the same vigilante mentality you ascribe to Zimmermann.

Oh and no, I don't consider you a big bad terrible person. More like a whiny, frustrated little boy.

Oh, I didn't realize saying someone can go fuck themselves means I think they deserve life in jail, the death penality and that I need to get up and go shoot them.

See, here I was, sitting at a computer... thinking "he can go fuck himself" means, "Wow, this dude's a prick. He can go put his nuts in a firepit for all I give a shit.".

Thank you for clarifing that, "He can go fuck himself!", is now a legal definition for life in jail... what would I do without you!

I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Well, if I am a whiney, frustrated little boy, what does that make you? Are you a pretenious, hypocritical and dense moron who is so petty enough to throw such desperate attempts at "gotcha's!" (and fail miserably) at such a little kid who should be bellow your level? That you really feel the need to drag yourself down to my level? It sure seems that way...

Well, I will take "Whiney, frustrated little boy" because I find it offensive that people are so quick to defend a murderer... over what ever you are.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Holy shit Shiranu. The first one to start bitching about strawmen was YOU.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "Shiranu"I swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

Holy shit Shiranu. The first one to start bitching about strawmen was YOU.

Perhaps, I'm too lazy to go back and look, but that is irrelevant to what I even said... but on that topic I am also not one of three people attacking one person for hyperbole misrepresented as a strawman and complaining when that one person does it, when two of their own people have engaged in it as well and yet that is perfectly acceptable.

Let me resay this...

Quote...but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem.

...I will try to put this in simple English for you... I was not complaining about the use of strawmen in that post, I was complaining about double-standards of calling people out over it when their side does it and it seems to be perfectly acceptable.

But please, lets continue to deflect from the point that...

QuoteIf Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive.

...and that given this Zimmerman cannot be reasonably percieved as justified in his actions.

I think I see the problem now... you aren't fluent in English are you?

Jesus, I feel bad now... I have been getting annoyed, but you cant even understand the langauge so OF COURSE you make no sense!

When did I become that douche that attacks people who don't use English "properly"...

Quote from: "Shiranu"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just to point out -- "hyperbole" can be, and I think is in this case, a form of strawman -- one which combines the classic strawman with a slippery-slope sensibility.

I disagree in this case it was a strawman.

By saint I mean that he did nothing wrong. Nonsensei has argued that if he is found guilty, its based on faulty or misinterperated information and also that he was legally justified in his actions.

I looked back over every post he's posted in thread, and nowhere does Nonsensei say that Zimmerman "did nothing wrong" or anything to that effect.  That means that imputing that position to him is indeed strawmanning.

Quote from: "Shiranu"If that is a strawman it is one of the most mild ones I have seen in a while. Additionally, given the fact that he has used numerous strawmen with far worse implications (that I think assault is acceptable, etc.), I see no reason to point out my percieved strawman over his. Expecially considering he has persisted in using them after being explained that. no, that's not what we believe and that they again have far worse implications than over-exagerating the fact that he finds Zimmerman's actions acceptable.

You've also argued "when you have decided that Zimmerman is the god-damn Jesus reincarnate" as a point, too.

I've already pointed out that both sides have made up their minds about things (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=923632#p923632).  I'm pointing out your strawmen because they are more egregious, to my eyes.

Quote from: "Shiranu"I think I see the problem now... you aren't fluent in English are you?

Jesus, I feel bad now... I have been getting annoyed, but you cant even understand the langauge so OF COURSE you make no sense!

When did I become that douche that attacks people who don't use English "properly"...

Are you a drunkenshoe sock puppet?

Yes! You got me! How did you know?

Polis ça??r?n! Its a sock puppet!!!

By the way...

QuoteIf Zimmerman would have just just driven by, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have called the police and followed their directions, Treyvon would be alive right now. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his truck instead of getting out and pursing Treyvon, Treyvon would still be alive.

...but yeah, he was definately justified...

I only ask because you sound quite a lot like her right now.

QuoteI looked back over every post he's posted in thread, and nowhere does Nonsensei say that Zimmerman "did nothing wrong" or anything to that effect. That means that imputing that position to him is indeed strawmanning.

QuoteThis has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

That literally took me about 8 seconds, and I am too lazy to go back and find more. As that is the most relevant to the evidence we do have, that is why I choose it.

As for the other part...

QuoteYou've also argued "when you have decided that Zimmerman is the god-damn Jesus reincarnate" as a point, too.

Yes, that was hyperbole on the same level as the saint remark... that he thinks Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. As I pointed out in his quote above, that is how he is apporaching it.

As for having our minds made up... yes, I agree. And I have made up my mind that anyone who refuses to accept that stalking (with a gun) an unarmed teenager is acceptable is a disgusting person and needs to be called on it.

The difference is my view doesn't harm anyone. His does. So I feel completely morally justified in calling him on it.

QuoteYes, that was hyperbole on the same level as the saint remark... that he thinks Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. As I pointed out in his quote above, that is how he is apporaching it.

Thats how the LEGAL SYSTEM approaches it Shiranu. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. My entire participation in this thread has been about the EVIDENCE and the LAW. Not how hes a white supremacist who engaged in racial profiling. Neither of those things are illegal. Following Trayvon Martin wasn't illegal either. None of the things we KNOW he did for certain are illegal.

And this is where we part company because you think those completely legal things he did were contributory and make any defense he might have mounted as the victim of an assault by Martin illegal.

And thats bullshit, because it puts Zimmerman in a position where he would be choosing between breaking the law or getting the shit kicked out of him.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteI looked back over every post he's posted in thread, and nowhere does Nonsensei say that Zimmerman "did nothing wrong" or anything to that effect. That means that imputing that position to him is indeed strawmanning.

QuoteThis has become tiresome. If you really think that following someone makes you at fault if the person you are following decides to assault you then we will never have any common ground.

That literally took me about 8 seconds, and I am too lazy to go back and find more. As that is the most relevant to the evidence we do have, that is why I choose it.

Yeah, "lazy" is the word for it ... but it's lazy thinking.  He didn't say Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong.  He's said that he doesn't know that Z is at fault.

You really shouldn't laugh about the English comprehension of others if yours is going to be this sloppy.

Quote from: "Shiranu"As for the other part...

QuoteYou've also argued "when you have decided that Zimmerman is the god-damn Jesus reincarnate" as a point, too.

Yes, that was hyperbole on the same level as the saint remark... that he thinks Zimmerman has done nothing wrong. As I pointed out in his quote above, that is how he is apporaching it.

No, he didn't argue anything of the sort.  You're using "hyperbole" as a totem in order to avoid the use of the term "strawman", but functionally, they're identical -- you're imputing upon him a position he hasn't spoken.

Quote from: "Shiranu"As for having our minds made up... yes, I agree. And I have made up my mind that anyone who refuses to accept that stalking (with a gun) an unarmed teenager is acceptable is a disgusting person and needs to be called on it.

That's your prerogative, but I find it pretty unconvincing.  When a person is in public, they sacrifice some rights to privacy, and a person in public certainly has no right to tell anyone else where they can or cannot go.  Zimmerman was clearly wrong in a common-sensical basis.  He clearly ignored his Neighborhood Watch training.  He clearly ignored what he had been instructed by the local Sheriff's office.  But that doesn't mean that he's criminally liable.

I notice also that you're presuming that Zimmerman knew that Martin was unarmed.  That is not a given.  Were you aware of this implicit premise of yours, or not?

Myself, I think Zimmerman was at the very least negligent.  As to whether he was criminally negligent, the jury will hear the evidence and render their verdict.

Quote from: "Shiranu"The difference is my view doesn't harm anyone. His does. So I feel completely morally justified in calling him on it.

Your view can result in harm as well.

Quote from: "Shiranu"

QuoteGiven the lack of evidence of him being innocent, he can go fuck himself.

QuoteYou display the same vigilante mentality you ascribe to Zimmermann.

Oh and no, I don't consider you a big bad terrible person. More like a whiny, frustrated little boy.

Oh, I didn't realize saying someone can go fuck themselves means I think they deserve life in jail, the death penality and that I need to get up and go shoot them.

See, here I was, sitting at a computer... thinking "he can go fuck himself" means, "Wow, this dude's a prick. He can go put his nuts in a firepit for all I give a shit.".

And you have the cheek to call other people dense? The problem isn't "he can go fuck yourself", it's "given the lack of evidence of him being innocent". You go on bitching how you want a law system that protects the citizen but then you want to take away from Zimmermann one of the basic guarantees of protection the law system gives the citizens: [blink:1tcvlngh]the presumption of innocence[/blink:1tcvlngh]. I just hope - and I mean it - noone will try to give you the same treatment you give Zimmermann.

QuoteThank you for clarifing that, "He can go fuck himself!", is now a legal definition for life in jail... what would I do without you!

Yeah, keep strawmanning.

QuoteI swear, its amazing how quickly people are to bitch about strawmen, deflections and all that hoo-haa when its someone they disagree with... but if its someone they agree with they seem to have no problem. A little consistenency would be nice, but oh well...

People point out your strawmen because you've been the only one using them in this thread. Live with it.

QuoteWell, if I am a whiney, frustrated little boy, what does that make you? Are you a pretenious, hypocritical and dense moron who is so petty enough to throw such desperate attempts at "gotcha's!" (and fail miserably) at such a little kid who should be bellow your level? That you really feel the need to drag yourself down to my level? It sure seems that way...

Well, I will take "Whiney, frustrated little boy" because I find it offensive that people are so quick to defend a murderer... over what ever you are.

I'm not defending a murderer. I'm defending a person's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Not that I expect you to grasp this simple concept. And if this makes me a pretentious, hypocritical and dense moron so be it. You just have to hope there will be some other pretentious, hpocritical and dense morons defending your rights if you'll ever happen to be accused of something and some internet thugs elevates himself as jury, judge and executioner.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"None of the things we KNOW he did for certain are illegal.

That's not quite true. We know he shot and killed Martin. Although that may have been in self-defense, it may also have been murder or manslaughter. Considering the circumstances, I would argue that manslaughter is a perfectly reasonable way to read this case.

What's more, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was engaging in vigilantism (//http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism), which is certainly illegal. He may not have intended to kill Martin, but he most certainly did intend to take the law into his own hands, which he demonstrated the moment he ignored the 911 dispatcher and stepped out of his truck to follow Martin. Had he intended merely to keep an eye on Marin, he could have done so form a discrete distance. Instead, he chose to follow closely enough that Martin could easily ask him why he was being followed.

Zimmerman was NOT a member of Neighborhood Watch, and was NOT appointed by any person or group of persons. He was self-appointed, and had a long history of 'patrolling' his neighborhood and calling the police regularly. His own neighbors had complained more than once about his over-zealous patrolling of the neighborhood. Zimmerman has a history of vigilantism, and it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

Quote from: "Davka"What's more, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was engaging in vigilantism (//http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism), which is certainly illegal.

No, it's not clear that Zimmerman was engaging in Vigilantism. At least not to those of us without magic crystal balls that allow us to go back in time and see things no one else saw and know things no one else knows.

QuoteZimmerman was NOT a member of Neighborhood Watch, and was NOT appointed by any person or group of persons.

That's not want I'm reading. "George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin) As such it is perfectly reasonable for Zimmerman to approach someone he doesn't recognize and ask them who they are and why they are peering into houses. For that matter it would be perfectly reasonable for any member of a community to do the same be they neighborhood watch member or not.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Davka"What's more, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was engaging in vigilantism (//http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism), which is certainly illegal.

No, it's not clear that Zimmerman was engaging in Vigilantism. At least not to those of us without magic crystal balls that allow us to go back in time and see things no one else saw and know things no one else knows.

Wrong. All you need to do is look at and listen to the public record. Zimmerman is a classic vigilante case.

Quote

QuoteZimmerman was NOT a member of Neighborhood Watch, and was NOT appointed by any person or group of persons.

That's not want I'm reading. "George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin) As such it is perfectly reasonable for Zimmerman to approach someone he doesn't recognize and ask them who they are and why they are peering into houses. For that matter it would be perfectly reasonable for any member of a community to do the same be they neighborhood watch member or not.

Just for the record:

George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization (//http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/)

We have only Zimmerman's word that Martin was "peering into houses." Listen to the 911 recording again. It's pretty damning.

Quote from: "The Dude"Not saying he should've shot him dead, but the media was so quick to call it a case of racism and were so quick to get sympathy for the kid, they really jumped the gun.

Pfffftttttttahaha

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

Red HERRINGS! Getcha red herrings here folks! These are over a year old, but every time we try to sell them to ya, we pretend like they are FRESH, different ones. These red herrings fucking stink, but we still hope you'll swallow them.

Quote from: "Davka"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Davka"What's more, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman was engaging in vigilantism (//http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism), which is certainly illegal.

No, it's not clear that Zimmerman was engaging in Vigilantism. At least not to those of us without magic crystal balls that allow us to go back in time and see things no one else saw and know things no one else knows.

Wrong. All you need to do is look at and listen to the public record. Zimmerman is a classic vigilante case.

Quote

QuoteZimmerman was NOT a member of Neighborhood Watch, and was NOT appointed by any person or group of persons.

That's not want I'm reading. "George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American, was the appointed neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily staying and where the shooting took place." (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin) As such it is perfectly reasonable for Zimmerman to approach someone he doesn't recognize and ask them who they are and why they are peering into houses. For that matter it would be perfectly reasonable for any member of a community to do the same be they neighborhood watch member or not.

Just for the record:

George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization (//http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/)

We have only Zimmerman's word that Martin was "peering into houses." Listen to the 911 recording again. It's pretty damning.

Association with the NSA has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program. There are several national neighborhood watch organizations. There are no requirements to be registered with any of them. Most neighborhood watch programs aren't.  Zimmerman's neighbors asked him to organize a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman coordinated the program with the Sanford police department. WTF else do you want?

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

It seems you're being a little deceptive.  As you probably know, citizens can do far more than you're letting on, regardless of the Neighborhood Watch bit.  If I see someone in my neighborhood who looks suspicious, I can go ask him what he's doing, and have on several occasions.  It usually ends up with me giving directions, but sometimes I get the "mind your own business" line or get ignored and the person walks off.  If I witness a felony, as a citizen, I can perform a citizen's arrest and detain an individual until police arrive.  I just have to have my ducks in order and can't violate anyone's rights.

Quote from: "Jack89"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

It seems you're being a little deceptive.  As you probably know, citizens can do far more than you're letting on, regardless of the Neighborhood Watch bit.

That's a little bit deceptive.  If I'm acting as part of an organization that doesn't allow its members to follow suspects as members of that organization, I can't, while acting as a member of that organization, follow a suspect.  Otherwise, as I said, Zimmerman had all the rights of any other citizen - but being a member of a watch organization didn't give him any additional rights.

QuoteIf I see someone in my neighborhood who looks suspicious, I can go ask him what he's doing

And if he refuses to answer you, that's where your right ends.  You can call 911, but you can't insist on an answer.  A police officer can.

QuoteIt usually ends up with me giving directions, but sometimes I get the "mind your own business" line or get ignored and the person walks off.

And, from the information we currently have, that's about where Zimmerman should have left it.

QuoteIf I witness a felony, as a citizen, I can perform a citizen's arrest

I don't know if that's true in all jurisdictions in the US, but it is in all of them in which I know the law.  But that's not exactly what happened in the Martin-Zimmerman situation, is it (from what we currently know)?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Association with the NSA has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program. There are several national neighborhood watch organizations. There are no requirements to be registered with any of them. Most neighborhood watch programs aren't.  Zimmerman's neighbors asked him to organize a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman coordinated the program with the Sanford police department. WTF else do you want?

Umm... I want it to be illegal to shoot and kill someone and claim it was self defense after continuing to follow them when the police department specifically told you not to. That's what I want. I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

The cold hard, obvious truth is this: there is one and ONLY ONE question relevant to determining guilt in this situation, and it is this:

Who escalated the verbal confrontation to physical violence first?


The Trayvon apologists will try to distract from it and add to it, but at the end of the day, that's really all there is to it. Nothing Zimmerman did was against the law. The first law that was broken was Trayvon beating his ass. Did he deserve to get shot? Hell no, no one is saying that, but he had no business beating the shit out of Zimmerman and trying to split his skull on the sidewalk either.

If race weren't a factor here this would be a non-story. That's all I have to say. Now we can get back to a bunch of white people on the Internet trying to prove to everyone how politically correct and racially sensitive they are.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Association with the NSA has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program. There are several national neighborhood watch organizations. There are no requirements to be registered with any of them. Most neighborhood watch programs aren't.  Zimmerman's neighbors asked him to organize a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman coordinated the program with the Sanford police department. WTF else do you want?

Umm... I want it to be illegal to shoot and kill someone and claim it was self defense after continuing to follow them when the police department specifically told you not to. That's what I want. I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

So, let me summarize and make sure I understand your logic.

Assaulting someone: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following you: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following and talking to you: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following and talking to you after a 911 operator said not to: NOT a crime - it's okay to beat the hell out of them

It's probably best if that's not the world we live in.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Jack89"It seems you're being a little deceptive.  As you probably know, citizens can do far more than you're letting on, regardless of the Neighborhood Watch bit.

That's a little bit deceptive.  If I'm acting as part of an organization that doesn't allow its members to follow suspects as members of that organization, I can't, while acting as a member of that organization, follow a suspect.  Otherwise, as I said, Zimmerman had all the rights of any other citizen - but being a member of a watch organization didn't give him any additional rights.

What do the rules of a neighborhood watch program have to do with it, especially if he organized it?  Are there any legal ramification if he otherwise complies with the laws applicable to a citizen?

QuoteIf I witness a felony, as a citizen, I can perform a citizen's arrest

Quote from: "Colanth"I don't know if that's true in all jurisdictions in the US, but it is in all of them in which I know the law.  But that's not exactly what happened in the Martin-Zimmerman situation, is it (from what we currently know)?

Good question.

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Association with the NSA has no bearing on the legitimacy of the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program. There are several national neighborhood watch organizations. There are no requirements to be registered with any of them. Most neighborhood watch programs aren't.  Zimmerman's neighbors asked him to organize a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman coordinated the program with the Sanford police department. WTF else do you want?

Umm... I want it to be illegal to shoot and kill someone and claim it was self defense after continuing to follow them when the police department specifically told you not to. That's what I want. I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

So, let me summarize and make sure I understand your logic.

Assaulting someone: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following you: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following and talking to you: a crime
Assaulting someone just for following and talking to you after a 911 operator said not to: NOT a crime - it's okay to beat the hell out of them

It's probably best if that's not the world we live in.

I never said it wasn't a crime. I said I don't want to establish a precedent where it becomes essentially completely legal to kill someone by simply following someone and looking like a threat to them until they confront you and then claiming he started it and you were just standing your ground when you shot him in the chest.

Its probably best if that's not the world we live in either. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: "Johan"I never said it wasn't a crime. I said I don't want to establish a precedent where it becomes essentially completely legal to kill someone by simply following someone and looking like a threat to them until they confront you and then claiming he started it and you were just standing your ground when you shot him in the chest.

Its probably best if that's not the world we live in either. Wouldn't you agree?

So you would rather set a precedent where proactively escalating a discussion to violence, even a confrontational one, is acceptable? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

You are so busy in your desire to vilify Zimmerman that you have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that Trayvon might actually be the violent aggressor in this situation.

None of the actions you are using to indict Zimmerman are actually against ANY law. If, when all the facts come to light, they show that Trayvon was the first to escalate the situation to physical violence, then you just might want to spend a few more cycles on justifying Trayvon's actions within the law instead of Zimmerman's.

Martin was mounted on a prone Zimmerman raining blows on his face and smashing his head into the pavement when he was shot in the chest, and the ONLY reason he behaved that way was because he (erroneously) believed that Zimmerman could do nothing to stop him. He escalated the situation to violence and was actively restraining Zimmerman for the purpose of pursuing continued violence when Zimmerman took the only course of action available to him to end the assault, and yet you wish us all to believe Martin was the victim?

Let me ask, exactly how severe of a beating was Martin entitled to give him in your opinion? Just how severe of a beating was Zimmerman obliged to take before defending himself?

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Johan"I never said it wasn't a crime. I said I don't want to establish a precedent where it becomes essentially completely legal to kill someone by simply following someone and looking like a threat to them until they confront you and then claiming he started it and you were just standing your ground when you shot him in the chest.

Its probably best if that's not the world we live in either. Wouldn't you agree?

So you would rather set a precedent where proactively escalating a discussion to violence, even a confrontational one, is acceptable? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

Nothing I've written even comes close to suggesting that.

QuoteYou are so busy in your desire to vilify Zimmerman that you have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that Trayvon might actually be the violent aggressor in this situation.

Actually I have given thought to that. I've given a lot of thought to that. We have no way of ever knowing whether Martin was an aggressor. But lets assume he was. I have no desire to make that sort of thing legal. I do have a desire to clarify the stand your ground law so that following/pursuing someone to the point that they become violent is not a valid use of the law.

Trayvon Martin comes to your house, breaks in and attacks you when you did nothing to provoke him? I think it ought to be legal for you to defend yourself with lethal force if appropriate. No problem.
Trayvon Martin pursues on you a public street while you are minding your own business and not otherwise having anything to do with him and then he attacks you without provocation? I think it ought to be legal for you to defend yourself with lethal force if appropriate. Again, no problem.
You pursue Trayvon Martin on public street while he is minding his own business and otherwise having nothing to do with you? IMO the law should say that you have forfeited your right to legally use lethal force for self defense in any altercation that might result from that scenario. That is all I am saying and nothing more.

QuoteIf, when all the facts come to light, they show that Trayvon was the first to escalate the situation to physical violence, then you just might want to spend a few more cycles on justifying Trayvon's actions within the law instead of Zimmerman's.

Those facts are never going to come light. Its the word of an accused man against the word of a dead kid. Unless some other credible witness can be found, the truth will never be known.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Johan"I never said it wasn't a crime. I said I don't want to establish a precedent where it becomes essentially completely legal to kill someone by simply following someone and looking like a threat to them until they confront you and then claiming he started it and you were just standing your ground when you shot him in the chest.

Its probably best if that's not the world we live in either. Wouldn't you agree?

So you would rather set a precedent where proactively escalating a discussion to violence, even a confrontational one, is acceptable? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

Nothing I've written even comes close to suggesting that.

QuoteYou are so busy in your desire to vilify Zimmerman that you have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that Trayvon might actually be the violent aggressor in this situation.

Actually I have given thought to that. I've given a lot of thought to that. We have no way of ever knowing whether Martin was an aggressor. But lets assume he was. I have no desire to make that sort of thing legal. I do have a desire to clarify the stand your ground law so that following/pursuing someone to the point that they become violent is not a valid use of the law.

Trayvon Martin comes to your house, breaks in and attacks you when you did nothing to provoke him? I think it ought to be legal for you to defend yourself with lethal force if appropriate. No problem.
Trayvon Martin pursues on you a public street while you are minding your own business and not otherwise having anything to do with him and then he attacks you without provocation? I think it ought to be legal for you to defend yourself with lethal force if appropriate. Again, no problem.
You pursue Trayvon Martin on public street while he is minding his own business and otherwise having nothing to do with you? IMO the law should say that you have forfeited your right to legally use lethal force for self defense in any altercation that might result from that scenario. That is all I am saying and nothing more.

QuoteIf, when all the facts come to light, they show that Trayvon was the first to escalate the situation to physical violence, then you just might want to spend a few more cycles on justifying Trayvon's actions within the law instead of Zimmerman's.

Those facts are never going to come light. Its the word of an accused man against the word of a dead kid. Unless some other credible witness can be found, the truth will never be known.

In which case, we have to go on what we know.

And are you serious? "You forfeit the right to defend yourself"!? You are proposing that there be situations where one citizen can legally and at their own discretion give another citizen a legal beating and that citizen is obliged to take it without recourse. Johan, that has to be the most retarded fucking thing I have read in a long, long time.

Face it bro, your argument is logically fucked.

The only reason people feel the way they do about this case is because Trayvon was 17 and black. If the same exact events had occurred, but it was a 6'2" 170# 30yo white guy who got shot while beating up the neighborhood watch, we wouldn't be discussing it; Zimmerman's actions would be considered totally justifiable. But because Martin was 17 and black, somehow we need to apply different rules.

Special pleading.

Quote from: "Seabear"And are you serious? "You forfeit the right to defend yourself"!? You are proposing that there be situations where one citizen can legally and at their own discretion give another citizen a legal beating and that citizen is obliged to take it without recourse.

You are misquoting me in order to make your case. Read what I wrote, then read what you said I wrote (but didn't). Two entirely different statements with two entirely different meanings.

I never said you forfeit the right to defend yourself nor did anything I wrote elude to that at all. I said you back the other person into attacking you, then you should forfeit the right to legally use lethal force to defend yourself. You are changing what I wrote because you have no argument otherwise.

But as long as you're changing my words, then I might as well comment on what you want to claim I wrote but didn't. For the record yes, though I didn't claim it, I would be fine with situations where one citizen can legally and at their own discretion give another citizen a legal beating provided the citizen getting beaten provoked or otherwise instigated the beating. If YOU pick a fight or otherwise coerce the other person into fighting you, then you deserve to get your ass handed to you IMO.

Which when you think about it, is kind of what the stand your ground law allows. I wasn't doing anything, I was minding my own business and had nothing to do with this person attacking me so I defended myself. Perfectly legal under the stand your ground law. Like I said, I fine with that. What I have problem with is I wasn't minding my own business and I did in fact have something to do with this person attacking me and I shot him. That IMO should not be legal. And because you seem to be struggling with reading comprehension, take note that nowhere in this statement did I say you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. I am saying if you instigate the altercation or play a role in starting it, you should not be able to use lethal force to defend yourself and get away with it legally. Go ahead defend yourself. But don't bring a gun to a fist fight that you had a role in starting and expect to call it self defense. That is all I'm saying and I've been very clear about it. Please don't twist my words into saying something they are not.

Quote from: "Jack89"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Jack89"It seems you're being a little deceptive.  As you probably know, citizens can do far more than you're letting on, regardless of the Neighborhood Watch bit.

That's a little bit deceptive.  If I'm acting as part of an organization that doesn't allow its members to follow suspects as members of that organization, I can't, while acting as a member of that organization, follow a suspect.  Otherwise, as I said, Zimmerman had all the rights of any other citizen - but being a member of a watch organization didn't give him any additional rights.

What do the rules of a neighborhood watch program have to do with it

He can't be acting as a member of an organization if he's violating the rules of the organization (according to the rules of any organization I've ever heard of).  Also, no organization can give a person rights he doesn't have by law.

QuoteAre there any legal ramification if he otherwise complies with the laws applicable to a citizen?

No, whether he complies with the rules of an organization has nothing to do with any legal ramifications.

Quote from: "Seabear"You are so busy in your desire to vilify Zimmerman that you have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that Trayvon might actually be the violent aggressor in this situation.

Deadly force in response to deadly force?  Fine.  Deadly force in response to untrained fists?  No.

QuoteNone of the actions you are using to indict Zimmerman are actually against ANY law.

That's the problem - the law seems to give people the right to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force.  If you're afraid that I might do something that will harm you, even though you have no evidence that I will, you're legally justified in killing me.

QuoteIf, when all the facts come to light, they show that Trayvon was the first to escalate the situation to physical violence, then you just might want to spend a few more cycles on justifying Trayvon's actions within the law instead of Zimmerman's.

It would still be a case of deadly response to a non-deadly threat.

QuoteMartin was mounted on a prone Zimmerman raining blows on his face and smashing his head into the pavement when he was shot in the chest

Zimmerman's claim, right?

Quoteand the ONLY reason he behaved that way was because he (erroneously) believed that Zimmerman could do nothing to stop him.

There's absolutely no evidence of what his reasoning was.

QuoteLet me ask, exactly how severe of a beating was Martin entitled to give him in your opinion? Just how severe of a beating was Zimmerman obliged to take before defending himself?

You're moving the goal posts mid-sentence.  The sole justification for deadly force should be, and in most states is, deadly force.  And the fists of someone not trained in one of a few martial arts are not considered deadly force.  It's a case of "I killed him because he was going to hurt me", and Florida is one of the very few states in which that's considered justification.

Thats a load of shit. Every human being knows how to kill another human being with their fists. Theres no such thing as a risk free beatdown. Hit someone in the right way or hit them enough times and they could die more easily than you think.

Theres no fucking chivalry in a street fight. Someone starts pounding your skull on the edge of the sidewalk you dont try to fight him off with your hands when you have a gun on you. Its absolutely insane to risk severe injury or death to yourself just because your attacker isn't as well armed as you are. It is ridiculous to expect people to value maintaining some arbitrary standard of force equality over a their own safety and survival especially while they are engaged in an altercation.

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

I disagree. To me there is never any reason I should ever EVER have to tolerate an assault and I am justified in repelling it using what ever means are available to me. If my attacker loses their life In the process too fucking bad. Thats the risk you run when you choose to be the violent aggressor.

Who resorted to physical violence first? Who is the only person in this whole situation unambiguously known to have committed a crime?

Unless you honestly expect us to believe that Zimmerman walked up and started a fist fight with a 6'2" 170# stranger, then it was Martin. After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

At this point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing Trayvon was only 17. He had no way of knowing how far or how badly the beating would continue. And, he had no means to defend himself or end the beating other than his gun. In fact, he had none of the 20/20 hindsight that is being used here to judge his actions ex post facto. No reasonable person would have lain there and let a stranger continue to beat them, possibly to unconsciousness or worse, with a means to defend themselves at hand. No reasonable person would expect them to do so.

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, if a larger, stronger person is beating you to death with his fists, you are obliged to only use your fists in self defense, even though you have no chance of saving yourself. If you use a gun, then you are the criminal, even though they assaulted you.

That is an utterly ridiculous argument. And, I might add, completely false as far as the law is concerned. Especially under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law.

Quote from: "Seabear"Who resorted to physical violence first?

Only one living person knows. And since his freedom depends on his answer, I don't know that his answer can be trusted.

QuoteAfter knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

And you KNOW that how exactly? Were you there?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Seabear"Who resorted to physical violence first?

Only one living person knows. And since his freedom depends on his answer, I don't know that his answer can be trusted.

QuoteAfter knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

And you KNOW that how exactly? Were you there?

It's funny, you weren't nearly so anxious to admit "we don't know" or adopt a "we weren't there" rationale while you were indicting Zimmerman's actions. But ironically, you think this is an acceptable defense for Trayvon's actions? Your powers of critical thinking seem to only work in one direction.

In fact, this sort of stilted emotional double-standard/special pleading type of thinking is the hallmark of every argument against Zimmerman.

Btw, in response to your last question, there are police photos of the wounds Zimmerman sustained at the hands of Martin. We know from the details of the gunshot wound that Martin was atop Zimmerman. So, we didn't have to actually be there to rationally conclude that Zimmerman didn't beat himself up. In legal terms, this is what is called evidence.

Edit/ps:
It's true, its possible that Zimmerman may be lying about some of the details, but he can't lie about all of them. Regardless however, you can't ignore the facts you do know in favor of drawing your conclusions from hypotheticals for which you no evidence, nor can you pass judgement using the 20/20 hindsight based on knowledge that the people in the altercation didn't have at the time.

It doesn't matter what you THINK. It's what you can PROVE. Just because you don't think you can trust Zimmermans account is totally irrelevant unless you can prove he willfully and maliciously shot Martin, and so far, based on what we DO know, the evidence doesn't support it.

Quote from: "Seabear"Who resorted to physical violence first? Who is the only person in this whole situation unambiguously known to have committed a crime?

Unless you honestly expect us to believe that Zimmerman walked up and started a fist fight with a 6'2" 170# stranger, then it was Martin. After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

At this point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing Trayvon was only 17. He had no way of knowing how far or how badly the beating would continue. And, he had no means to defend himself or end the beating other than his gun. In fact, he had none of the 20/20 hindsight that is being used here to judge his actions ex post facto. No reasonable person would have lain there and let a stranger continue to beat them, possibly to unconsciousness or worse, with a means to defend themselves at hand. No reasonable person would expect them to do so.

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, if a larger, stronger person is beating you to death with his fists, you are obliged to only use your fists in self defense, even though you have no chance of saving yourself. If you use a gun, then you are the criminal, even though they assaulted you.

That is an utterly ridiculous argument. And, I might add, completely false as far as the law is concerned. Especially under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law.

Holy fucking shit cakes of hypocrisy.

Holy fucking shit cakes of avoiding the key issue.

Who struck the first blow?

You don't know. So you can't with any veracity say that anyone struck the first blow. For all you know, it could have been Zimmerman himself.

Now, I read through the entire thread in one go, and I at no point noted in Trayvon's defenders any claim that anyone knew who struck the first blow, instead of trying out different scenarios for size. Indeed, some doubt that there was any "fight" at all. Their assignment of blame was based entirely on the testimony of the police dispatcher and Zimmerman himself.

Absent any police report that says otherwise, I don't think that this beatdown Zimmerman claims happened at all, and certainly not to the point where any reasonable person would think his life is in danger (he didn't go to the hospital to have his wounds treated). The only person who witnessed this beatdown has credibility problems, pure and simple.

Since I believe that the fight angle can be thrown out entirely, we're left with a aggressive man stalking then killing a boy who was minding his own business. To me, there's something wrong with that.

Quote from: "Seabear"It's funny, you weren't nearly so anxious to admit "we don't know" or adopt a "we weren't there" rationale while you were indicting Zimmerman's actions. But ironically, you think this is an acceptable defense for Trayvon's actions? Your powers of critical thinking seem to only work in one direction.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have maintained all along that we can only judge based on what we know. We know Zimmerman was following Martin. We know Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin. We know he continued to do so anyway. We know that Martin knew he was being followed by someone unknown to him and for a reason unknown to him. We know the Martin is dead and we know that Zimmerman shot him. That is what we know.

We don't know who attacked whom first or what extent before the gun was fired and we don't know the exact cause of any of Zimmerman's injuries.

All of my opinions are based on those facts and only those facts. You might not agree with my opinions but you not agreeing with me does not equate to me using any kind of double standard.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

I agree with your point.  I was addressing public perception ("why it got so much attention"), not the facts of the case itself.  When someone in a perceived position of authority, no matter how wrong the perception is nor how miniscule the authority, is thought to have acted in a racist manner, the American public goes apeshit.

I know that NW has no actual authority.  I had this discussion in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the course of digging up info on the case came across the NW training pamphlet used in the class Zimmerman had taken.  It declares the "no-pursuit" policy explicitly, in a boxed section of oversized text.

You're preaching to the choir.

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

Nobody knows who struck first (though the fact that Zimmerman is wounded is pretty fucking telling).

Some people think that not knowing what happened isnt sufficient reason for a case dismissed. This just touches once again on a recurring theme in this thread of Zimmerman being guilty until proven innocent.

If you acknowledge that you don't know what happened but still feel he is guilty, fine. But don't try to pretend your position has any association with the law. Some of the mental contortions ive seen being executed to legally justify a guilty verdict for Zimmerman in this thread are distressing.

FFS we have people insisting that assault victims should be legally bound to fight fair with their attackers or risk becoming the guilty party!

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

Quote from: "SvZurich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.

Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

Quote from: "SvZurich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Colanth"But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

I understand that.  My point was that even in a fistfight, the use of a gun might be justified.

I've got part of my left ear missing.  It was bit off in a fight about 25 years ago.  The guy thought I was fucking his wife (I wasn't), and he wanted to kill me.  If I'd had a gun, I would have been justified in killing him, I think -- at one point he'd stunned me, and I came to with him spearing my sternum with copper conduit -- good thing bone is dense, eh?   After coming to, I managed to grapple him to the ground and in the close-quarters combat he bit off some of my ear:

(//http://oi42.tinypic.com/34i6ctl.jpg)

Anyway, had I had a gun that night I probably would have used it, because after being speared like that, I certainly felt my life was on the line.  Granted that the conduit itself wasn't deadly, but the intent he showed in attacking me in that manner was clearly maniacal.

I'm not saying that either party is guilty or innocent.  I'm saying that I can envision circumstances to justify both possible outcomes of the trial.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

Thump, in your circumstances, I too would have shot if carrying.  I am sorry you went through that dear.  That bastard deserves to be punished severely.

Quote from: "SvZurich"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

Agreed.

Quote from: "SvZurich"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

Thats up to you. As the aggressor who initiated violence you get to go to prison.

As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

Quote from: "SvZurich"As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

No you won't.

Prove he was stalking you as opposed to just following you. For that matter prove he was following you instead of just going the same way you were going. Good luck.

Quote from: "SvZurich"Thump, in your circumstances, I too would have shot if carrying.  I am sorry you went through that dear.  That bastard deserves to be punished severely.

Oh, he went to jail for aggravated assault ... after a visit to the emergency room. We were each a mess, to be sure.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "SvZurich"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

I understand that.  My point was that even in a fistfight, the use of a gun might be justified.

I've got part of my left ear missing.  It was bit off in a fight about 25 years ago.  The guy thought I was fucking his wife (I wasn't), and he wanted to kill me.  If I'd had a gun, I would have been justified in killing him, I think -- at one point he'd stunned me, and I came to with him spearing my sternum with copper conduit -- good thing bone is dense, eh?   After coming to, I managed to grapple him to the ground and in the close-quarters combat he bit off some of my ear:

[ Image (//http://oi42.tinypic.com/34i6ctl.jpg) ]

Anyway, had I had a gun that night I probably would have used it, because after being speared like that, I certainly felt my life was on the line.  Granted that the conduit itself wasn't deadly, but the intent he showed in attacking me in that manner was clearly maniacal.

I'm not saying that either party is guilty or innocent.  I'm saying that I can envision circumstances to justify both possible outcomes of the trial.

I think this story right here is a terrific illustration of why I feel Zimmerman trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting is bullshit.

1. The person in question sought you out with intent to harm you.
2. You did nothing to provoke that harm.
3. During the scuffle, you were knocked out and regained consciousness to find the assailant trying to pierce your chest with a piece of metal (which I assume left evidence of same on your chest).
4. Your assailant also bit off part of your ear.
5. Though you didn't indicate it, I think its safe to assume you sought medical attention for your wounds after the incident.

You weren't the aggressor and you had reasonable cause to believe your life was in danger. This is the exact type of situation the Florida stand your ground law was written for.


Now let's look at what we know about the Martin/Zimmerman incident.

1. Zimmerman pursued Martin
2. Martin knew he was being pursued but didn't know who was pursuing him nor for what reason or intent.
3. Zimmerman was bleeding at the scene but refused medical attention.

Now let's look at portions of the Florida statute in question. I've bolded the relavent statement.

Quote776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

A jury will have to decide whether what can be known about Zimmerman's actions is sufficient to rule that he provoked the use of force. But I think its at least reasonable to assume that jury might rule that way given the evidence currently available which is why I've quoted this section of the statute.

If that ends up being the case, then the question is a fairly simple one. Did Zimmerman feel the injuries he was receiving, which he did not feel the need to seek immediate medical attention for, were putting him in emanate danger of losing his life? Its possible for a jury to go either way on that question I suppose. But it does seem like a pretty hard sell when you compare it to situations such as what Thumpalumpacus described above.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

Quote from: "SvZurich"As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

No you won't.

Prove he was stalking you as opposed to just following you. For that matter prove he was following you instead of just going the same way you were going. Good luck.

We'll have to just agree to disagree on this, dear.

I agree in principle, Johan.  I'm withholding my opinion on Zimmerman for the simple reason that I wasn't there and have only an incomplete possession of the facts of the matter.

The biggest issue I had, initially, with the case was that police investigation struck me as perfunctory.  Someone was dead at the hands of another person.  That circumstance alone demands a deeper investigation than what was done, to my mind.  I have to also say that I'm perhaps biased against Zimmerman for the fact that I'm a member of an interracial family and my nephew has been unreasonably accosted on occasion (by the police, not a neighborhood watchman), and so I'm working to keep that out of my opinion as well.

My hope is that a decent jury will hear the evidence and render justice.  I'll definitely follow the case once it opens.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Nobody knows who struck first (though the fact that Zimmerman is wounded is pretty fucking telling).

Equally telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Furthermore, where are the wounds on Martin? Given that he was completely untrained in any form of unarmed combat, it is likely that he sustained injury to his hands when striking Zimmerman. Where's the autopsy report detailing these injuries?

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Some people think that not knowing what happened isnt sufficient reason for a case dismissed. This just touches once again on a recurring theme in this thread of Zimmerman being guilty until proven innocent.

If you acknowledge that you don't know what happened but still feel he is guilty, fine. But don't try to pretend your position has any association with the law. Some of the mental contortions ive seen being executed to legally justify a guilty verdict for Zimmerman in this thread are distressing.

Except nobody's doing that. I started with a presumption of Zimmerman's innocence until I heard the details of the case, whereupon I changed my opinion of him to be more on the guilty side. See how that works?

The presumption of innocence only extends so far. When you act so out of line with any form of good sense, you can only be considered reckless, and as such the entire blame for what transpires afterward falls upon you.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"FFS we have people insisting that assault victims should be legally bound to fight fair with their attackers or risk becoming the guilty party!

Zimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

Let me say that again: We know what Zimmerman was doing. Not only do we have his testimony, but a dispatcher cautioned him to avoid a confrontation, an instruction he clearly disregarded when following Martin, given that he and his vehicle were so well-separated.

This is the asymmetry you guys don't seem to understand. If things were reversed and Martin shot Zimmerman, we would have good reason to believe that Martin was the one being stalked, and as such it would constitute legitimate self-defense.

QuoteEqually telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them. Attempting to require me to show regard for the well being of my attacker is ass backwards thinking. He is the aggressor, he deserves whatever he gets.

Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

QuoteFurthermore, where are the wounds on Martin? Given that he was completely untrained in any form of unarmed combat, it is likely that he sustained injury to his hands when striking Zimmerman. Where's the autopsy report detailing these injuries?

All this says to me is that Martin knew how to dish out a beatdown. You don't need professional training to know how to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself in the process.

QuoteExcept nobody's doing that. I started with a presumption of Zimmerman's innocence until I heard the details of the case, whereupon I changed my opinion of him to be more on the guilty side. See how that works?

You changed your opinion of his guilt without having any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation. Like I said before, go ahead and have your opinion but don't pretend it has any association with a rational evaluation of the available facts.

QuoteThe presumption of innocence only extends so far. When you act so out of line with any form of good sense, you can only be considered reckless, and as such the entire blame for what transpires afterward falls upon you.

His recklessness is debatable. If following someone is reckless then it is far easier to be reckless (and therefore criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result) than any of us ever realized. You say if Zimmerman hadn't followed him, this wouldn't have happened. I say if Martin hadn't jumped him this wouldn't have happened. I could even say if Martin hadn't entered his neighborhood that night none of this would have happened.

But im sure you would start sputtering about how Martin had the right to go wherever he wants.

SO DID ZIMMERMAN.

QuoteZimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

NO. Being followed by someone is not justification enough for assaulting them. Not EVER.

QuoteLet me say that again: We know what Zimmerman was doing. Not only do we have his testimony, but a dispatcher cautioned him to avoid a confrontation, an instruction he clearly disregarded when following Martin, given that he and his vehicle were so well-separated.

This is the asymmetry you guys don't seem to understand. If things were reversed and Martin shot Zimmerman, we would have good reason to believe that Martin was the one being stalked, and as such it would constitute legitimate self-defense.

I know no such thing. I would think that Zimmerman was following Martin so that he could tell the police where to find him when they finally arrived. You and people like you seem to want to assign a more malicious purpose to Zimmerman's actions and I cannot accept that spin without further evidence supporting it.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteEqually telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them.

Until your sentencing, then too bad for you - depraved indifference manslaughter is a felony.  "Jumps me" and "uses lethal force" may be the same in the street, but they aren't in the court room.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

Nope its not fucking Fantasy 7, its fucking real life where there are fucking real laws.

And the very first sentence of Florida's stand your ground law reads as follows: A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

It then goes on to lay out various situations where use of deadly force is justified. In pretty much all of them, there is a requirement for a person to reasonably believe they are in eminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

So you can flex your bad ass internet muscles and talk about how you wouldn't hesitate to use a gun against an unarmed attacker all you like, but that doesn't change what the law is.

Take a look at the photos of Zimmermans bloody nose from the night of the shooting and decide for yourself if you would reasonably believe you were about to die if you sustained such an injury. More importantly, ask yourself if a jury of your peers would reasonably believe it. Because that is what this case will likely come down to.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them.

Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

Johan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"All this says to me is that Martin knew how to dish out a beatdown. You don't need professional training to know how to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself in the process.

Oh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

Now, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"You changed your opinion of his guilt without having any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation. Like I said before, go ahead and have your opinion but don't pretend it has any association with a rational evaluation of the available facts.

Well, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"His recklessness is debatable. If following someone is reckless then it is far easier to be reckless (and therefore criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result) than any of us ever realized. You say if Zimmerman hadn't followed him, this wouldn't have happened. I say if Martin hadn't jumped him this wouldn't have happened. I could even say if Martin hadn't entered his neighborhood that night none of this would have happened.

But im sure you would start sputtering about how Martin had the right to go wherever he wants.

SO DID ZIMMERMAN.

I'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteZimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

NO. Being followed by someone is not justification enough for assaulting them. Not EVER.

As long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"I know no such thing. I would think that Zimmerman was following Martin so that he could tell the police where to find him when they finally arrived. You and people like you seem to want to assign a more malicious purpose to Zimmerman's actions and I cannot accept that spin without further evidence supporting it.

Really? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

QuoteJohan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

QuoteOh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think being able to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself somehow translates into "mythical" fighting skills and then turn around and introduce some unfocused, unsupported, utterly theoretical and totally undetailed alternative hypothesis about how Zimmerman became wounded.

QuoteNow, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

QuoteWell, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

Yeah actually it FUCKING IS HOW JUSTICE WORKS. If you don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges against someone YOU DONT BRING CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

QuoteI'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

No im pretty sure following someone on a public street is always legal. 100% of the time. Under all circumstances. Trying to call it staking is nothing more than a transparent, pathetic attempt to make it something more than it was.

QuoteAs long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

LOL wow. Cool story kid. How about having your skull pounded into the pavement? How much damage is acceptable before you can pull out your gun? Should zimmerman have calmly waited until he lost some teeth? Got a skull fracture? Please fucking tell me where that line is. I would love to fucking know the answer to that and as someone who knows fucking everything you should be able to supply me with it.

QuoteReally? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

Same exact scenario and chain of events, but now imagine Zimmerman is a woman. Does that change your opinion? Why or why not?


How about the same exact scenario, but now Trayvon is a 35yo white guy? Again, does that change your opinion?

Not really. My problem is that it sets a standard that you can stalk someone at night, and after disobeying police dispatch and leaving your vehicle, if you get in a fist fight you have the right to use excessive force.

I really could care less for the ethnicity or genders involved, I just think its a moron's position to try to justify stalking and killing people and that it shows no respect for what the law should be about (protecting people).

Well, I think it's a morons position to try to justify assaulting someone and making it the fault of the person who got beaten up. Instructions of a 911 operator do not bear the compulsory force of law, nor does disobeying them automatically render you outside the protection of the law. It's completely irrelevant, and if you think it isn't then you are a fool who can't separate emotion form rationality.

Its utterly ridiculous that you are trying to say Trayvon would have equally justified in beating up a woman under the same circumstances. What about a child, should we be able to beat them up too, if the follow us at night? And how is the assailant supposed to know in an A Priori fashion that the person following them has disobeyed a 911 dispatcher are therefore free game? Your sense of fairness would result in chaos.

Zimmerman broke no laws, and his indictment is nothing more than a move to appease and defuse the public. All his defense team has to show to a preponderance of the evidence is that he felt he might be killed or seriously injured, and the judge could find him immune from prosecution under the "Stand Your Ground" laws. Since Zimmerman has the injuries to show for it, and evidence shows Martin was mounted on a prone Zimmerman beating him, this will not be difficult to prove.

Mark my words. It will be dismissed, the prosecution has no case.

Im tired of this topic. We aren't getting anywhere and, as with anything else we talk about here, what we say has no effect on the actual result in court.

I really don't want to talk about this again unless they make more evidence available to the public.

Which probably wont happen until theres a verdict.

Either way it looks like Zimmerman and his wife are slated to do some time.

FYI

QuoteDid George Zimmerman Ignore the Police Dispatcher, and Why Did He Have a Gun?
Jacob Sullum|Apr. 3, 2012 2:24 pm

Although it has been widely reported (by me, among others) that George Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a police dispatcher suggested that he stop, the recording of Zimmerman's 911 call leaves that point unclear. Zimmerman gets out of his SUV before the dispatcher asks (probably because the wind is suddenly audible in the background), "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says yes, and the dispatcher replies, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says "OK" and then dithers for a minute or so about where police should meet him, finally saying they should call him when they arrive, "and I'll tell them where I'm at." The dispatcher agrees, and the recording ends at that point. The implication that Zimmerman did not plan to stay put could mean he continued to follow Martin, although he claims (through his father) that he was only looking for an address so he could figure out exactly where he was. In an interview with The Miami Herald, Walt Zalisko, "a former Jersey City police commander who now owns a police management consulting company in Central Florida,...said it's implausible that Zimmerman would not know where he was in a tiny gated community that he patrolled regularly," declaring, "That's a lie right there." Maybe, but it's consistent with the confusion Zimmerman expresses during the 911 call:

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through, so I don't know the address.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/03/did-z ... e-dispatch (http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/03/did-zimmerman-ignore-the-police-dispatch)

So even though its irrelevant, this objection to Zimmerman's behavior is in reality ambiguous at best, and at worst, completely false.

And how ironic is it that this source can be found on  a web site titled 'reason.com'?

@Seabear: The reference to the dispatcher call was only intended to speak to Zimmerman's state of mind, not to make it out like he was doing something illegal by ignoring those instructions per se. The illegal part was using excessive force (the gun) against an unarmed person, whether or not he was attacked.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteJohan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

Getting socked in the face is not "getting your face pounded in."

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteOh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think being able to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself somehow translates into "mythical" fighting skills and then turn around and introduce some unfocused, unsupported, utterly theoretical and totally undetailed alternative hypothesis about how Zimmerman became wounded.

Bullshit walks. You are ascribing to Martin skills you have no proof that he ever possessed. And I still don't see any physical evidence that Martin even touched Zimmerman — that Zimmerman's bloodied nose was caused by Martin's fist. Not one speck of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands, for instance.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteNow, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

See above and spin on it yourself.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteWell, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

Yeah actually it FUCKING IS HOW JUSTICE WORKS. If you don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges against someone YOU DONT BRING CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

You mean the charges that Zimmerman isn't being put on trial for? Oh wait. He is being put on trial. Go fuck yourself.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteI'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

No im pretty sure following someone on a public street is always legal. 100% of the time. Under all circumstances. Trying to call it staking is nothing more than a transparent, pathetic attempt to make it something more than it was.

Restraining orders will enjoin someone from getting within a certain distance of another person, even on a public road. You lose.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteAs long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

LOL wow. Cool story kid. How about having your skull pounded into the pavement? How much damage is acceptable before you can pull out your gun? Should zimmerman have calmly waited until he lost some teeth? Got a skull fracture? Please fucking tell me where that line is. I would love to fucking know the answer to that and as someone who knows fucking everything you should be able to supply me with it.

Apparently, sacrasm is lost on you. You were the one who brought absolutes into this picture, and now you're stamping your little feet and being whiny when I pull one on you. Grow up, child.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteReally? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

I thought Zimmerman was following him. I would think that "keeping the guy in sight" would be part of that.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Im tired of this topic. We aren't getting anywhere and, as with anything else we talk about here, what we say has no effect on the actual result in court.

I really don't want to talk about this again unless they make more evidence available to the public.

Which probably wont happen until theres a verdict.

Either way it looks like Zimmerman and his wife are slated to do some time.

Okay, bye.

HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Get over yourself.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Funny you should say that, I could say the same thing about you, the way you blow up a bloodied nose into an all-righteous curbstomp and somehow Martin never got so much as a speck of Zimmerman's blood on him. I tend to think that the person is bullshitting me at that point.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Get over yourself.

You first, Mister I'm-not-gonna-comment-again.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

Martin was on the phone to his girlfriend when the confrontation began.  Are you sure you want to go with the idea that Martin "jumped" Zimmerman?

FWIW, the girlfriend is turning into a nightmare for the prosecution.  They've already caught her in a couple of pretty blatant lies under oath.  Looks like she might be doing some time for perjury.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"HR you're just another shitbag who thinks its okay to lace your nonsensical tripe with invective because you cant be wrong by virtue of how awesome you are.

Funny you should say that, I could say the same thing about you, the way you blow up a bloodied nose into an all-righteous curbstomp and somehow Martin never got so much as a speck of Zimmerman's blood on him. I tend to think that the person is bullshitting me at that point.

Quote from: "Nonsensei"Get over yourself.

You first, Mister I'm-not-gonna-comment-again.

(//http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Zimmerman%27s%20head%20wounds.jpg)

Just a bloody nose.

Im tired of arguing about this issue but ill trash shitbags like you all day every day. Its my fucking bread and butter.

This is all just B S... Zimmerman got out of his car after being asked NOT to.. followed/stalked this kid and got confronted for it.. Then the appropriate reaction is to shoot him??.. Really??
Zimmerman "asked for it".. and the kid paid for it. The cops were already on their way.. He had NO REASON to get out of his car...!! None zero zip..!! He is not a racist though,.. just a bloated egotistical vigilante who is REALLY STUPID..!!
I predict he will get a verdict of involuntary manslaughter..

Quote from: "Nonsensei"

QuoteJohan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

I've seen people get their faces pounded in and I've also seen people take take a lucky blow or two to the nose during minor scuffles.

I sure as shit never saw anyone get their 'face pounded in' that looked anywhere near as healthy as this guy afterward.

(//http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/box_300x250/2012/12/03/PS_0.jpg)


And yeah sunshine, if you're in the middle of a scuffle/fight/nuclear war/whatever and you intend to use a gun, then you are MOST DEFINITELY to be expected to make that judgment accurately on the fly. Owning and using a gun requires something called personal responsibility. And based on your earlier too bad for the other guy comments, I'd say personal responsibility is a subject you could stand to read up on and learn about.

Quote

QuoteNow, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

And that proves exactly one thing and one thing only. It proves that Zimmerman had injuries to his face. It does NOTHING to prove how he got them. There are lots of ways he could have gotten those injuries that wouldn't involve Martins fists.

Quote

QuoteReally? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

So Martin jumped Zimmerman while Zimmerman was still in his vehicle? Because if your only intent is to follow so you can tell the police where he went, there is no need to get out of your vehicle.

Quote from: "mnmelt"This is all just B S...

If by "BS" you mean using "reason" and "logic", as opposed to "appeal to emotion" and "special pleading", then yes, this is all just BS.

Quote from: "mnmelt"Zimmerman got out of his car after being asked NOT to..

Not true, refuted above. And, not against the law.

Quote from: "mnmelt"followed/stalked this kid and got confronted for it..

Assuming facts not in evidence, and an attempt at inflammatory misrepresentation of actual events, especially the "stalked" part. And, following someone is not against the law.

Quote from: "mnmelt"Then the appropriate reaction is to shoot him??.. Really??

Um, you left out a couple of events in your fantasy-world timeline... like the part where Trayvon started beating the shit out of him, split his skull open on the sidewalk, etc.

Quote from: "mnmelt"Zimmerman "asked for it"..

LMFAO, there is NO such thing under the law. No words you can say entitle someone to give you a free beating. Unless, you are trying to say that a lot of battered women "asked for it", too?

Quote from: "mnmelt"and the kid paid for it.

Yep, tragic; he surely didn't deserve to get shot, just as Zimmerman didn't "deserve" a beating. Just goes to show, resorting to violence is never the right answer.

Quote from: "mnmelt"The cops were already on their way.. He had NO REASON to get out of his car...!! None zero zip..!!

Not true, and... not against the law. Ironically, if Trayvon had had the same magical powers of prescience for which you indict Zimmerman for lacking, perhaps he would have known better than to assault an armed man?

Quote from: "mnmelt"He is not a racist though,.. just a bloated egotistical vigilante who is REALLY STUPID..!!

Inflammatory, appeal to emotion, unproven, and... still not against the law, even if true.

Quote from: "mnmelt"I predict he will get a verdict of involuntary manslaughter..

I predict you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You don't know. So you can't with any veracity say that anyone struck the first blow. For all you know, it could have been Zimmerman himself.

Now, I read through the entire thread in one go, and I at no point noted in Trayvon's defenders any claim that anyone knew who struck the first blow, instead of trying out different scenarios for size. Indeed, some doubt that there was any "fight" at all. Their assignment of blame was based entirely on the testimony of the police dispatcher and Zimmerman himself.

Absent any police report that says otherwise, I don't think that this beatdown Zimmerman claims happened at all, and certainly not to the point where any reasonable person would think his life is in danger (he didn't go to the hospital to have his wounds treated). The only person who witnessed this beatdown has credibility problems, pure and simple.

Since I believe that the fight angle can be thrown out entirely, we're left with a aggressive man stalking then killing a boy who was minding his own business. To me, there's something wrong with that.

I know eye witness testimony is not everything and is not always reliable, but you're going to throw the fight angle out entirely when the fight was witnessed?

[youtube:18w04bxn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODGzTLA0JSg[/youtube:18w04bxn]

There have been conflicting reports about who is yelling for help, and it hasn't been determined for sure who it was (but the witness said it was Zimmerman). I don't necessarily think Zimmerman is innocent, but I see a lot of reasonable doubt. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence. He has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like I said in the last thread, what Zimmerman did was stupid (following Trayvon). But was it illegal? I can go into a bar and laugh at a group of bikers, which would be really stupid on my part and I might get a beating because of it. I can legally do that though. That's not anything like what happened, but I'm just pointing out that Zimmerman's stupidity doesn't necessarily make him guilty. The Trayvon supporters seem to be assuming that Zimmerman either attacked Trayvon or had it in his mind that he was going to detain Trayvon (possibly at gunpoint) until police arrived. Those are possibilities of course, but there was no history of Zimmerman either attacking a suspicious person in his neighbourhood, or trying to detain anyone at gunpoint.

I was told in the last thread that in Florida you can attack someone if you feel threatened, regardless of the other person's intent. What if someone got out of their car and jogged up to me to ask for directions, and I felt threatened? In Florida, I could jump them and bash their head in legally, and the person's head I bashed in is guilty for assault because they unknowingly made me feel threatened? We don't know that Zimmerman wanted to detain Trayvon, or that he gave Trayvon a good enough reason to attack him (not saying that I'm certain Trayvon started the fight). Maybe he wanted to detain Trayvon and maybe he didn't. There is reasonable doubt here because he doesn't have a history of detaining people at gunpoint.

During the beatdown, Zimmerman says his gun became exposed and Trayvon saw it and told him he was going to die. He says he shot him to save his own life. This very well could have happened. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, but it's a reasonable possibility and not something extremely unlikely to have occurred. With the evidence we have available to us at the moment, I don't think we can say George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter beyond any reasonable doubt.

Voice analysis determined that it was not Zimmerman yelling for help. The reason he decided not to have a stand your ground hearing is because he would lose. From what I have seen presented, and the circumstances of this incident, I would be surprised if he gets anything less than 2nd degree intentional homicide. But, I have been surprised by verdicts before. In the end, it will come down to who is believable, and who isn't. Zimmerman has not done himself any favors in that regard. He might even plead out to a lesser charge. We'll see.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"

Quote from: "Nonsensei"And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

Getting socked in the face is not "getting your face pounded in."

And even if Zimmerman had been "getting his face pounded in", unless faced by deadly force, if you respond by deadly force, you take your lumps when you get to court.  If the judge or jury feel that you over-reacted, you serve your sentence without whining about it.

He had a gun and you shot him?  Even if a jury finds you guilty of murder, it'll probably be reversed or sent back on appeal.  He had fists and you shot him?  You'll probably be found guilty of a B felony at least, and spend years in prison.

Quotesplit his skull open on the sidewalk

:lol: Has anyone else here ever had a decent sized cut on their head? They bleed like a mother fucker. Based on the picture, it looks like he had a very minor cut or two on the back of his head. I seriously doubt it even needed stitches.

QuoteI was told in the last thread that in Florida you can attack someone if you feel threatened, regardless of the other person's intent. What if someone got out of their car and jogged up to me to ask for directions, and I felt threatened? In Florida, I could jump them and bash their head in legally, and the person's head I bashed in is guilty for assault because they unknowingly made me feel threatened? We don't know that Zimmerman wanted to detain Trayvon, or that he gave Trayvon a good enough reason to attack him (not saying that I'm certain Trayvon started the fight). Maybe he wanted to detain Trayvon and maybe he didn't. There is reasonable doubt here because he doesn't have a history of detaining people at gunpoint.

Here's the root of the whole thing. For one, Zimmerman had zero authority to detain anybody so if he really wanted to he's definitely in the wrong from the start. He did have a history of overstepping his bounds as neighborhood watch and acting like a wannabe cop.

If the girlfriend is right that Martin asked "Why are you following me?" as his first question when confronting Zimmerman, then it's clear that for better or worse, he felt threatened by Zimmerman and had a valid Stand Your Ground claim according to the Florida law, before the fight ever happened and before Zimmerman retaliated by shooting him in the chest. Zimmerman followed him, Martin saw him and even tried to escape the situation, Zimmerman continued to pursue at least for some amount of time, and it's in question what he did or whether he actually stopped after 911 dispatch told him not to follow. Only then does the confrontation happen.

If I was a betting man, I'd say he gets some sort of manslaughter conviction and/or at the very least, a weapons violation and reckless endangerment. It all depends on the jury, though.

According to at least one source this is what Zimmerman reported to the police.

After calling 911 to report Trayvon's suspicious activity Zimmerman lost sight of him. Zimmerman got out of his truck to look for him, but didn't find him. He started walking back to his truck.

 On the way back to his truck Trayvon approached from another direction, intercepted Zimmerman and asked, "Do you have a problem?"

Zimmerman replied, "No."

Trayvon told him, "You do now."

He then punched Zimmerman in the face knocking him to the ground. Trayvon then jumped on top of Zimmerman, punched him some more and slammed his head against the ground repeatedly. During this struggle Zimmerman was calling for help.

At some point during the struggle Trayvon spotted Zimmerman's gun which was still holstered and tried to get it. Zimmerman was able to retain possession of the gun and shot Trayvon ending the fight.

Whether or not it happened that way will be up to the jury to decide. Hopefully they will have more evidence to go on than we do. If the evidence does support Zimmerman's story then I don't believe he is guilty of any crimes, and here is why.

1.   Following Trayvon was not a crime.
2.   Zimmerman never physically confronted Trayvon.
3.   Zimmerman had ceased anything that could be considered physically aggressive behavior by attempting to return to his truck.
4.   Trayvon approached Zimmerman, stopped him from retreating to his truck and initiated physical contact.

One of the things I have heard that conflicts with Zimmerman's story is that it was Trayvon not Zimmerman that was yelling for help during the struggle. This argument is support by so called expert testimony. Testimony that comes from paid experts, i.e. someone who received money to support that claim. However that testimony is in conflict with the FBI's analysis of the recording. They say the recording is of insufficient quality to determine if the calls for help were coming from Trayvon or Zimmerman. It should also be noted that the woman who placed the 911 call reported to police that she believed it was Zimmerman calling for help.

Another argument I have heard is that Zimmerman used excessive force. He should have taken the ass whipping Trayvon was giving him because he was a dumb ass and he deserved it. I'm sorry but hundreds of people in the US are beat to death every year with no weapon of any kind involved. According to FBI statistics there were more than 4000 homicides of this type between 2007 and 2011 alone. That is more than twice as many deaths than are attributed to rifles (including assault rifles) in the same period. George Zimmerman had every reason to be afraid for his life if Trayvon Martin was beating his head against the ground. As such he was justified using any means to stop Trayvon from doing what he was doing.

As I said before following someone is not a crime. If however Zimmerman is lying about the way events unfolded, and he initiated the confrontation by attempting to stop or detain Trayvon then he was wrong. He is not guilty of murder but is legally responsible for the Trayvon's death. If he is telling the truth and Trayvon attacked him while he was attempting to return to his truck then the killing of Trayvon Martin was justified.

Pappy, what's the source for your story about how the interaction started?  Do you have a link handy?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-marti ... /id/433912 (http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-killing/2012/03/26/id/433912)

May or may not be the story I read, but has the same stuff in it.

Thanks, bud.

eta:  It has to be pointed out that this is what Zimmerman himself told police.  The source for the site you linked is the Orange Sentinel.  Here's the opening paragraphs:

QuoteWith a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.



Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager)

Is there any independent corroboration of Zimmerman's account?

ORLANDO, Fla.-George Zimmerman talked to Sanford police a half-dozen times, going over what happened the night he killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. In the retelling, parts of his story changed. His account also does not line up with other evidence.
 
Here are some of the most prominent inconsistencies:
 
-Where the confrontation happened
 
In his first recorded interview with police the night of the Feb. 26 shooting, Zimmerman said Martin popped out at him from "the bushes."
 
By the time he re-enacted the shooting less than 24 hours later, however, Zimmerman was much more precise, and the spot he pointed out had no bushes nearby.
 
As he walked police through what happened where, he said Martin approached him from his left rear and at a spot near the intersection of two sidewalks.
 
-What Martin said
 
In that first taped interview with Sanford police Investigator Doris Singleton, Zimmerman said that when he and Martin came face to face on that sidewalk, Martin said, "What the (expletive) (is) your problem, homey?"
 
During the next 24 hours, Zimmerman's version of what Martin said would change slightly, becoming less offensive with each telling.
 
In another interview later that night, he told Investigator Chris Serino that Martin said, "You got a problem?"
 
During the re-enactment the next afternoon, he told police that Martin yelled, "Yo, you got a problem?"
 
Also, a 16-year-old Miami girl told prosecutors she heard something different. She said she was on the phone with Martin at the time and heard him say, "What are you following me for?"
 
-Dispatcher asked him to find Martin
 
After first spotting Martin and dialing a nonemergency police number, Zimmerman parked his truck while he talked with the dispatcher, asking that an officer come to the scene.
 
While still on the line, he drove a short distance down the street before parking again.
 
-Why did he move his truck?
 
During the re-enactment the day after the shooting, Zimmerman told detectives it was because he had lost sight of the 17-year-old, and the dispatcher asked him to find him.
 
A review of Zimmerman's recorded call with the dispatcher, though, shows there was no such request.
 
-Did he follow Martin?
 
In his call to police before the shooting, Zimmerman can be heard huffing and puffing as if he had been running or walking fast.
 
"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked.
 
"Yeah," Zimmerman answered.
 
"OK, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher said.
 
"OK," Zimmerman said.
 
But after the shooting, he offered a different reason for getting out of his truck. Serino pressed him for an explanation three days later.
 
I was "just going in the same direction he was," Zimmerman said. He had exited his truck, he said, to get a street address for authorities.
 
"Did you pursue the kid? Did you want to catch him?" Serino asked.
 
"No," said Zimmerman.
 
Serino challenged him further: "How do you not know the three streets in your neighborhood (where) you've been living for three years?"
 
Zimmerman replied that he had a bad memory and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
 
Other inconsistencies
 
Investigators also pointed out to Zimmerman in a Feb. 29 interrogation several other discrepancies, but he did not clear them up:
 
-He had said that during their struggle, Martin covered Zimmerman's nose and mouth with his hands, but in a recorded 911 call from a neighbor in which someone can be heard screaming for help, none of the cries sound muffled.
 
-Zimmerman had injuries but not ones that matched the severity of the attack he described, according to Serino. If Martin had been banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer should have had skull fractures, not just cuts, Serino said.
 
-There were no defensive wounds on Zimmerman's hands and just one small scrape on a finger of Martin's left hand, Serino said - little evidence of life-and-death struggle.
 
---
 
)2012 The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Fla.)
 
Visit The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Fla.) at www.OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com)

George Zimmerman's self-defense claim could be hurt by his own witnesses, who have changed their accounts since they were interviewed early on in the Trayvon Martin case.

The Orlando Sentinel reported that four witnesses' statements regarding the Feb. 26 shooting changed significantly when they were interviewed a second time in March. The statements are included in the collection of evidence officially released by the State Attorney's Office last week.

Here is an overview of the key changes in their accounts, as reported by the Sentinel.

Witness 2
A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Trayvon was shot, was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."

She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."

A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.

That all changed when she was reinterviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.

"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. ... I just know I saw a person out there."


Witness 12 was interviewed on March 20, saying she "didn't know which one" was on top of the other during the scuffle. Six days later, she said she was sure it was Zimmerman on top, the Sentinel reported.

Witness 6 lived close to where the incident occurred. On the night of the shooting, he told investigators that Martin was on top, "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," the paper reported. He also noted that Zimmerman was calling for help. But three weeks later, the witness said he wasn't sure who was calling for help.

Witness 13 said he spotted Zimmerman with "blood on the back of his head," he told police. Zimmerman allegedly told the witness that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him." In two interviews after that one a month later, the witness described Zimmerman's demeanor as nonchalant, "... More like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody' like it was nothing."

The witnesses are expected to be interviewed at least once more before Zimmerman's trial.

This week, security video was released showing Trayvon Martin at a Sanford, Fla. 7-Eleven the night he died. The teen purchased a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea, a short time before he was killed.

The evidence from that night -- and the dialogue surrounding it -- has grown increasingly complex. Last week, it was revealed that Zimmerman really did sustain injuries to his face and head during the incident. In addition, information from Martin's autopsy report was leaked just one day after medical records from Zimmerman's family physician were released.

ABC News reported that the teen had traces of THC, the drug found in the marijuana plant, in his system the night of the shooting.

 Zimmerman has been charged with shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on the evening of Feb. 26 in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer called 911 and told a police dispatcher that the teen, who was returning from a trip to a nearby convenience store, "looked suspicious." After an altercation, Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest, subsequently telling local police that he acted in self-defense.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Thanks, bud.

[spoil:m6516eh0]eta:  It has to be pointed out that this is what Zimmerman himself told police.  The source for the site you linked is the Orange Sentinel.  Here's the opening paragraphs:

QuoteWith a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.



Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager)

[/spoil:m6516eh0]

Is there any independent corroboration of Zimmerman's account?

I did say

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"According to at least one source this is what Zimmerman reported to the police.

As far as independent corroboration goes Zimmerman is the only witness. At least some of the physical evidence supports parts of his account of events. I'm not aware of any that contradicts his story. At least not any that isn't in dispute such as the claims it was Trayvon yelling for help. If there is I'm sure it will come out in the trial. In any case our legal system is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such it isn't Zimmerman's responsibility to prove it happened the way he claims it did. Rather it is the states responsibility to prove it didn't. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt I might add. If they can't Zimmerman should go free.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Thanks, bud.

[spoil:2zupz7kh]eta:  It has to be pointed out that this is what Zimmerman himself told police.  The source for the site you linked is the Orange Sentinel.  Here's the opening paragraphs:

QuoteWith a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.



Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager)

[/spoil:2zupz7kh]

Is there any independent corroboration of Zimmerman's account?

I did say

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"According to at least one source this is what Zimmerman reported to the police.

As far as independent corroboration goes Zimmerman is the only witness. At least some of the physical evidence supports parts of his account of events. I'm not aware of any that contradicts his story. At least not any that isn't in dispute such as the claims it was Trayvon yelling for help. If there is I'm sure it will come out in the trial. In any case our legal system is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such it isn't Zimmerman's responsibility to prove it happened the way he claims it did. Rather it is the states responsibility to prove it didn't. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt I might add. If they can't Zimmerman should go free.

Perhaps you should read the 2 posts above.

Which part of two posts above talks about physical evidence or eye witness testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's story?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Which part of two posts above talks about physical evidence or eye witness testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's story?

Can't you read?

And, which story? he's told several.

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"As far as independent corroboration goes Zimmerman is the only witness. At least some of the physical evidence supports parts of his account of events. I'm not aware of any that contradicts his story. At least not any that isn't in dispute such as the claims it was Trayvon yelling for help. If there is I'm sure it will come out in the trial. In any case our legal system is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such it isn't Zimmerman's responsibility to prove it happened the way he claims it did. Rather it is the states responsibility to prove it didn't. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt I might add. If they can't Zimmerman should go free.

I'm expecting Zimmerman will go free.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Which part of two posts above talks about physical evidence or eye witness testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's story?

Can't you read?

I can read. I'm asking you to explain how anything in your post shows things didn't happen the way Zimmerman said it did.

Quote from: "Jmpty"And, which story? he's told several.

When was the last time you described the same traumatic event to two or more people at different times sometimes days or weeks apart and it came out the same way every time you described it?

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-killing/2012/03/26/id/433912

May or may not be the story I read, but has the same stuff in it.

Pappy, I don't trust NewsMax as a credible news source.  I see a lot of spam and sensationalist claims from them, and they are Reich Wing in bias.  I also don't trust their Dr. Blaylock's claims.

QuoteBesides political commentaries, Newsmax publishes The Blaylock Wellness Report[31] in which Dr. Russell Blaylock provides information regarding choices in food, drugs, nutritional supplements and other health remedies, as well as denouncing vaccines, blood pressure medicine, and aluminum cookware.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media)

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Thanks, bud.

[spoil:1fidca9t]eta:  It has to be pointed out that this is what Zimmerman himself told police.  The source for the site you linked is the Orange Sentinel.  Here's the opening paragraphs:

QuoteWith a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.



Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager)

[/spoil:1fidca9t]

Is there any independent corroboration of Zimmerman's account?

I did say

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"According to at least one source this is what Zimmerman reported to the police.

As far as independent corroboration goes Zimmerman is the only witness. At least some of the physical evidence supports parts of his account of events. I'm not aware of any that contradicts his story. At least not any that isn't in dispute such as the claims it was Trayvon yelling for help. If there is I'm sure it will come out in the trial. In any case our legal system is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such it isn't Zimmerman's responsibility to prove it happened the way he claims it did. Rather it is the states responsibility to prove it didn't. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt I might add. If they can't Zimmerman should go free.

Understood.  But that doesn't mean that Zimmerman's claims ought to be introduced into this discussion without sourcing them clearly.  And if there is no independent corroboration, that should be noted, in the interest of full disclosure.

If you're going to introduce Zimmerman's own testimony, you should clearly label it as such.  Not doing so, especially when the "report" is exculpatory, looks shady, to put the kindest spin on it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But that doesn't mean that Zimmerman's claims ought to be introduced into this discussion without sourcing them clearly.  And if there is no independent corroboration, that should be noted, in the interest of full disclosure.

If you're going to introduce Zimmerman's own testimony, you should clearly label it as such.  Not doing so, especially when the "report" is exculpatory, looks shady, to put the kindest spin on it.

Thump, I started my post with

Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"According to at least one source this is what Zimmerman reported to the police.

I don't know what to call that other than labeling it as Zimmerman's own testimony. Somewhere in there I also said something along the lines of "If Zimmerman's story is true." and added if not he is responsible from Trayvon's death. The point of my post, useless as it was, was not to convince anyone Zimmerman is innocent. We don't have enough information to make that call ourselves. It was only to get some of the people here to consider the possibility that Trayvon's killing was justifiable based on his own actions. Because that is something that some here aren't even willing to consider.

Fair enough, I s'pose, I wasn't reading clearly.  I stand by my point that his own testimony is obviously going to exculpate himself, and that without objective verification it's not very useful.

As you may or may not have gathered from my posts in this thread, I make no pretense of knowing whether Z is guilty or not. But I'm inclined to treat any statement from a suspect skeptically absent objective verification.

Zimmerman most likely made those claims before sitting down with an attorney.  His "testimony" is an affirmative defense - and in US law, an affirmative defense means that you're guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent.  IOW, he has to prove that Martin posed an immanent threat to his, Zimmerman's, life.  And good luck with that.  (Zimmerman's claims aren't enough, and Martin's phone call is enough to throw reasonable doubt on them.)

Quote from: "Colanth"Zimmerman most likely made those claims before sitting down with an attorney.  His "testimony" is an affirmative defense - and in US law, an affirmative defense means that you're guilty unless you can prove that you're innocent.  IOW, he has to prove that Martin posed an immanent threat to his, Zimmerman's, life.  And good luck with that.  (Zimmerman's claims aren't enough, and Martin's phone call is enough to throw reasonable doubt on them.)

Unfortunately the only thing we can know for sure is that Martin's phone call took place. We can't know for sure what was said. And we can be sure that Zimmerman's attorney will do everything possible to cast doubt on the testimony of Martin's girlfriend.

Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Ignore the implied instructions of a 911 operator? Follow him down the street? Talk to to him? Ask him his business? Tell him the cops were on the way?

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING. When the police arrived, Zimmerman was bleeding from multiple wounds to his head, face, nose, and mouth.

These facts are uncontested. The entire vilification of Zimmerman hinges on the fact that everyone wants to convince themselves that "he had it coming". The problem is, there is no such thing under the law. Nothing Zimmerman could have said or done (short of assaulting Martin, which is NOT in evidence) makes him or ANYONE ELSE subject to a free beating at the hands of a stranger under ANY circumstances. Furthermore, the nature of Zimmermans injuries, and the fact that he was prone with Martin mounted upon him, shows that there was no reasonable expectation that the assault would end anytime soon.

Based on the evidence known to us at this time, and ignoring hypothetical scenarios and speculation, the ONLY person known to have committed a crime in this entire situation is Martin. When he was shot, he was beating the shit out of another person, a person who had two choices: continue taking a beating, or use his firearm. Based specifically on Florida's existing 'Stand Your Ground' laws, Zimmerman is the victim and WILL be found not guilty.

Now, that doesn't make it right, nor make Zimmerman blameless. No one is saying that. But under the law, the prosecution has almost no case at all. Which of course is why he wasn't initially charged until the DA realized there would be riots if he wasn't. This would be a non-issue if Martin was white, 30 years old, and/or Zimmerman was a woman. This entire dog-and-pony show hinges on the special pleading that Martin was a 17yo black person. The problem is, our legal system does not and cannot selectively suspend the law nor grant special consideration for a persons actions based solely on their race, sex, etc. And THIS is exactly what is being argued here: that Martin was entitled to beat Zimmerman because he (Martin) was 17 and black, and was approached by someone whose actions we didn't particularly like, but weren't against any laws.

In addition, this would be a non-issue had Martin actually turned out to be a criminal instead of an innocent kid. But the important thing to remember here is that Zimmerman had no way of knowing Martins nature at the time. We all have the benefit of hindsight.

One thing is relatively certain: if Martin had NOT assaulted Zimmerman, he would not have been shot. So unless substantive evidence to the contrary comes to light, they have NO CASE.

Of course, if new evidence does come to light, then we are all obliged to re-evaluate our positions based on the facts as we know them. And I reserve the right to do so.

Until then...

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Ignore the implied instructions of a 911 operator? Follow him down the street? Talk to to him? Ask him his business? Tell him the cops were on the way?

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING. When the police arrived, Zimmerman was bleeding from multiple wounds to his head, face, nose, and mouth.

These facts are uncontested. The entire vilification of Zimmerman hinges on the fact that everyone wants to convince themselves that "he had it coming". The problem is, there is no such thing under the law. Nothing Zimmerman could have said or done (short of assaulting Martin, which is NOT in evidence) makes him or ANYONE ELSE subject to a free beating at the hands of a stranger under ANY circumstances. Furthermore, the nature of Zimmermans injuries, and the fact that he was prone with Martin mounted upon him, shows that there was no reasonable expectation that the assault would end anytime soon.

Based on the evidence known to us at this time, and ignoring hypothetical scenarios and speculation, the ONLY person known to have committed a crime in this entire situation is Martin. When he was shot, he was beating the shit out of another person, a person who had two choices: continue taking a beating, or use his firearm. Based specifically on Florida's existing 'Stand Your Ground' laws, Zimmerman is the victim and WILL be found not guilty.
Now, that doesn't make it right, nor make Zimmerman blameless. No one is saying that. But under the law, the prosecution has almost no case at all. Which of course is why he wasn't initially charged until the DA realized there would be riots if he wasn't. This would be a non-issue if Martin was white, 30 years old, and/or Zimmerman was a woman. This entire dog-and-pony show hinges on the special pleading that Martin was a 17yo black person. The problem is, our legal system does not and cannot selectively suspend the law nor grant special consideration for a persons actions based solely on their race, sex, etc. And THIS is exactly what is being argued here: that Martin was entitled to beat Zimmerman because he (Martin) was 17 and black, and was approached by someone whose actions we didn't particularly like, but weren't against any laws.

If Martin had NOT assaulted Zimmerman, he would not have been shot. So unless substantive evidence to the contrary comes to light, they have NO CASE. Of course, if new evidence does come to light, then we are all obliged to re-evaluate our positions based on the facts as we know them.

Proof? Perhaps you didn't read the part about the witnesses, or the fact that he changed his story several times, or the fact that he declined the stand your ground hearing, or the fact that he conspired with his wife to hide assets, rendering him a liar.

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

How do we know that Martin beat Zimmerman?  That's Zimmerman's assertion and he's going to have to prove it if he uses it as a defense.

According to the news there was a witness who saw Martin beat Zimmerman, the link to the video interview was posted above. Could be lies of course, but I don't see why this person would lie. As far as we know he knew neither of them.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

How do we know that Martin beat Zimmerman?  That's Zimmerman's assertion and he's going to have to prove it if he uses it as a defense.

I dunno, maybe the photographic evidence collected by police on the scene, showing  blood from lacerations to his nose, mouth, and scalp?

That is, unless you are trying to say that Zimmerman, with no history of violence or mental illness, was actually a calculating sociopath that used his neighborhood watch as a pretense for creating a situation where he could shoot a complete stranger in cold blood with absolutely no motive whatsoever. And then he beat himself up and split the back of his own skull on the sidewalk in order to cover up his murderous sociopathic tendencies.

Just to clarify, is that really the alternate the scenario you are suggesting we accept as a plausible explanation?

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

QuoteDoesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

QuoteDoesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

That's just stupid. It's amazing, the speculative hypothetical what if situations you concoct in order to square the circle. Really, he tripped? Or he beat himself up? So he decided to shoot someone?

Yeah that makes sense. Do you really think this would stand up in court? We don't get to make just any story we like.

You know the police an tell if injuries like that are self inflicted. Do you have any reason, other than your own flight of fancy, to believe that? It's amusing that every rebuttal only seems to hypothetically address one aspect of the situation, while ignoring all the rest.

There is a lot faith going on here. You'd make an excellent Christian. The parallels to so many theistic arguments I have seen here are uncanny. It's funny

Is there any point to continuing this thread?

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

QuoteDoesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

That's just stupid. It's amazing, the speculative hypothetical what if situations you concoct in order to square the circle. Really, he tripped? Or he beat himself up? So he decided to shoot someone?

Yeah that makes sense. Do you really think this would stand up in court? We don't get to make just any story we like.

You know the police an tell if injuries like that are self inflicted. Do you have any reason, other than your own flight of fancy, to believe that? It's amusing that every rebuttal only seems to hypothetically address one aspect of the situation, while ignoring all the rest.

There is a lot faith going on here. You'd make an excellent Christian. The parallels to so many theistic arguments I have seen here are uncanny. It's funny

How's that book on reading comprehension coming along? I NEVER said I believed any of those things. In fact I said I have no proof of any of them INCLUDING him being beaten by Martin. I then asked what proof you have that Martin beat him as opposed to hitting him once or twice and then jumping on top of him. You completely ignored that question yet again so I will assume your proof is none.

Then you point your finger at me and say I believe only hypotheticals with no proof (which I don't) and then compare me to a Christian for doing it. And yet, you yourself believe a hypothetical with no solid proof other than the claims of man who would likely face a murder charge if he didn't make such claims. The witness statements are inconsistent and contradicting. And yet you're sure Zimmerman received a BEATING. Not a beating but a BEATING. So of the two of us, which one is believing hypotheticals without solid proof and which one is saying I'd like proof before I believe anything?

This guy looks like he was beaten:

(//http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/407983/jon-fitch-3.jpg)

This guy does not look like someone who was ever in any danger of being beaten to death to me.
(//http://www.trbimg.com/img-51364328/turbine/la-na-nn-zimmerman-hearing-20130305-001/600)


So let me be clear on this. I believe the evidence presented so far that Zimmerman was being beaten such that he could reasonably feel his life was in danger is simply insufficient. I believe the evidence presented so far that Zimmerman was attacked without provocation is insufficient. There is as much evidence which points to Zimmerman having reasonable fear for his own life as there is for Zimmerman over reacting and making an extremely poor choice. Lacking more compelling evidence either way, I suspect he will not be convicted of anything. But if you're asking me to believe he was being beaten such that he felt he life was in danger, well sorry I just don't see that based on any evidence presented so far. I'd say at best its possible but not likely. But like said, since no one seems to be able to prove that he just overreacted, I suspect he will walk.

[blink:e9puzt2j]1[/blink:e9puzt2j]

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Is there any point to continuing this thread?

Well for me, I think this case clearly illustrates some of the reasons why stand your ground laws need to be very clearly written and relatively narrow in focus. Anytime you create legislation which makes it legal for one person to take the life of another, you have the potential for creating legal loopholes which allow a person to get away with either manslaughter or possibly even murder as the case may be.

Here we have a case where we do not know and likely can not know who threw the first punch nor to what extent if any that first punch was provoked by the other party. But knowing those things makes a definite difference in which particular section of Florida's stand your ground law would apply. And that matters because the different sections of the law carry different criteria for what exactly justifies the use of lethal force. Under certain sections, the evidence presented so far does not seem to meet the requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.

However if Florida's stand your ground law did not exist, or if it was limited in scope to say home invasion scenarios, there is no doubt that Zimmerman would be facing a very different legal case than he currently is. And I think that is worthy of discussion because we're looking at a situation where it is at least plausible that Zimmerman could be guilty of something. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, and may walk away scott free when he wouldn't have done so otherwise.

So do we really want laws on the books that make it perfectly legal for one of our loved ones to be killed for getting themselves into an altercation with another even though they showed no clear intent to do life threatening harm? That seems like a bad idea to me. It seems like a law that could allow as many crimes to go unpunished as it intends to prevent.

Quote from: "Seabear"

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Seabear"Let us cut thru the bullshit here. Exactly what did Zimmerman do that entitled Martin to give him a free beating?

Who said he was entitled to a free beating? No one has implied that. If Zimmerman was attacked, he had a right to defend himself. He did not have the right to kill over a bloody nose and the law says so.

QuoteDoesn't matter. We aren't talking about Martin popping him in the mouth and moving on. He administered a BEATING.

And you can prove that how exactly? One single punch can render a bloody nose. So can tripping and falling on the sidewalk. So can whacking yourself in the nose with the butt of your own gun. So can lots of other things.

I am not implying that any of those things happened nor would I imply same because I have no proof of any of them. But I also have no proof that any of them didn't happen. So where is your proof that Martin administered a BEATING? Witness statements contradict one another and other evidence is inconclusive. So where is the proof that makes you so sure this is exactly what happened?

That's just stupid. It's amazing, the speculative hypothetical what if situations you concoct in order to square the circle. Really, he tripped? Or he beat himself up? So he decided to shoot someone?

It's not the prosecution's job to disprove those "speculations".  If Zimmerman presents an affirmative defense, Zimmerman has to prove his assertions.  And with even one witness claiming that it didn't happen the way he said it did, and with no physical evidence that it did (a bloody nose is evidence of a bloody nose, not how it got bloody), there's reasonable doubt to his story.

His best defense is to claim that he was scared that Martin was going to kill him (even if he has to admit to being a racist) and accept the slap on the wrist it'll get him.  An affirmative defense with no physical evidence to back it up is suicide.

Quote from: "Johan"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Is there any point to continuing this thread?

Well for me, I think this case clearly illustrates some of the reasons why stand your ground laws need to be very clearly written and relatively narrow in focus. Anytime you create legislation which makes it legal for one person to take the life of another, you have the potential for creating legal loopholes which allow a person to get away with either manslaughter or possibly even murder as the case may be.

Here we have a case where we do not know and likely can not know who threw the first punch nor to what extent if any that first punch was provoked by the other party. But knowing those things makes a definite difference in which particular section of Florida's stand your ground law would apply. And that matters because the different sections of the law carry different criteria for what exactly justifies the use of lethal force. Under certain sections, the evidence presented so far does not seem to meet the requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.

However if Florida's stand your ground law did not exist, or if it was limited in scope to say home invasion scenarios, there is no doubt that Zimmerman would be facing a very different legal case than he currently is. And I think that is worthy of discussion because we're looking at a situation where it is at least plausible that Zimmerman could be guilty of something. Involuntary manslaughter perhaps, and may walk away scott free when he wouldn't have done so otherwise.

So do we really want laws on the books that make it perfectly legal for one of our loved ones to be killed for getting themselves into an altercation with another even though they showed no clear intent to do life threatening harm? That seems like a bad idea to me. It seems like a law that could allow as many crimes to go unpunished as it intends to prevent.

I suppose the bitterness with which the conversation is being conducted leads me to think that the point is wasted on the interlocutors involved.  A scorched-earth strategy tends to burn bridges, too.