Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 4)
Thread Tools
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Whatever, fashion statements is got nothing to do with the point I was trying to make and you know it.
So says the person who a few posts up was postulating that if Trayvon Martin was "dressed like he walked out of the pages of a J. Crew catalog" he would still be alive today.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 07:18 PM
 
So change it so come other catalog that markets to the tennis/polo crowd and doesn't sell hoodies or baggy jeans. My ignorance to the contents of jcrews product line is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make but you keep going off on the pointless. Its like youre angry with me for agreeing with Gerardo that Zimmerman was partly triggered by the kids clothing? I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in being suspicious because of how the kid was dressed.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
So change it so come other catalog that markets to the tennis/polo crowd and doesn't sell hoodies or baggy jeans.
I'm sorry ... but this is utterly unintelligible.

Originally Posted by Blaze_MkIV
My ignorance to the contents of jcrews product line is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make but you keep going off on the pointless. Its like youre angry with me for agreeing with Gerardo that Zimmerman was partly triggered by the kids clothing? I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in being suspicious because of how the kid was dressed.
So it's "irrelevant" all of a sudden now that its absurdity has been demonstrated? Oh how convenient.

In any event we can agree on this note. Zimmerman had absolutely no justification to view this kid "suspiciously". And the fact that he did anyway is more a reflection on his mentality than anything that young kid did.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm sorry ... but this is utterly unintelligible.
It's a simple concept. Dress like this, and you won't be mistaken for a burglar:


Heck, even actual burglars could probably talk themselves out of trouble if they prepared by dressing like that



In any event we can agree on this note. Zimmerman had absolutely no justification to view this kid "suspiciously". And the fact that he did anyway is more a reflection on his mentality than anything that young kid did.
Doesn't really matter what it's a reflection of (besides reality), if it lowers the chances of me being shot at, (or other weaponized item used on me), I would be willing to dress funny every day. It's not exactly fair that I can't dress cool without consequences, but life isn't fair...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
my hypothesis is if Martin was dressed like he walked out of the pages of a jcrew catalog Zimmerman would have stereotyped him differently and he's be alive today. I'm not saying that Martin should have dressed differently I'm saying that Zimmermans reaction to the stereotype is the problem.
OMG! Next thing you're going to say if that women showed less cleavage, they'd be raped less! You're making an unsupportable assertion about Zimmerman's view of Martin's style of dress, and that's called grasping at straws. You're telling us more about yourself than anything else, as Geraldo did.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
OMG! Next thing you're going to say if that women showed less cleavage, they'd be raped less! You're making an unsupportable assertion about Zimmerman's view of Martin's style of dress, and that's called grasping at straws. You're telling us more about yourself than anything else, as Geraldo did.
Nice reductio ad absurdum. Lets compare "unsupportable assertion" and "grasping at straws" with hypothesis. BTW we're all making "unsupportable assertion"s here. For example: "Next thing you're going to say if that women showed less cleavage, they'd be raped less!"

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I
In any event we can agree on this note. Zimmerman had absolutely no justification to view this kid "suspiciously". And the fact that he did anyway is more a reflection on his mentality than anything that young kid did.

OAW
The point I (and Geraldo) was trying to make was one of the main causes of Zimmerman suspicions was the way he was dressed. If he was dressed in a manor more acceptable to Zimmerman he would have been less suspicious and it may not have progressed the way it did.

It's entirely plausible Zimmerman had cause to view him suspiciously, a series of break-ins where the kid matches the description.

Were we get back on topic is all Zimmerman should have done is called the police. He shouldn't have escalated things. That's the difference between neighborhood watch and vigilante.
( Last edited by BLAZE_MkIV; Mar 24, 2012 at 10:09 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
The point I (and Geraldo) was trying to make was one of the main causes of Zimmerman suspicions was the way he was dressed. If he was dressed in a manor more acceptable to Zimmerman he would have been less suspicious and it may not have progressed the way it did.
Listen to the 911 call. Zimmerman says nothing about the way Martin was dressed. You and Geraldo are inventing motivations for Zimmerman without any justification whatsoever.
It's entirely plausible Zimmerman had cause to view him suspiciously, a series of break-ins where the kid matches the description.
Listen to the 911 call. Zimmerman says nothing at all like this.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 11:15 PM
 
I'm just going by what OAW quoted in his original post. I'll listen to the tape tomorrow.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's a simple concept. Dress like this, and you won't be mistaken for a burglar:
And that my friend is where what you say seems logical ... and may even be true most times ... but unfortunately it simply is not true all of the time. Trust me ... I know from personal experience.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 12:05 AM
 
There's zero chance this guy is going to be charged with capital murder much less a possibility he could be found guilty of it. There's no evidence to support the charges. The closest thing to a witness is the supposed girlfriend which can only supply testimony up to the point the two parties met face to face.

With only a timeline and 3rd party phone calls to contradict Zimmerman's account of the altercation the best any honest DA should stretch this out to is manslaughter. And with FL laws being what they are there's reason to suspect be should be found innocent of that too given the few provable facts that exist.

People can get as outraged as they like about the incident but a criminal court shouldn't allow itself to be pressured by public opinion.

This is both hilarious and expected though:
Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 08:30 AM
 
I'm not sure I agree with you, Cap'n. There is the 911 call, where at the very least it can be proven that Martin didn't start the confrontation, and Zimmerman was following him (to the point that the dispatcher had to tell him not to do that, and he ignored it). That should be enough to prosecute, but is it enough to convict? I'm not sure, but if the police had done their job and asked around for neighbors who may have heard or saw the conflict at the time, there might have accumulated more admissible evidence.

With all that said, the "New Black Panthers" are not being helpful. In fact, they are actively hurting their cause and I hope the whole lot gets arrested as well.

Maybe put them in the same holding cell as Zimmerman, that ought to be fun. A bunch of New Black Panthers vs. one Hispanic redneck? My money's on the redneck, we already know he's out for blood. Stick the fight on Pay Per View and it will outgross Hunger Games! (I hope I get my cut for thinking of the idea....)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There's zero chance this guy is going to be charged with capital murder much less a possibility he could be found guilty of it. There's no evidence to support the charges. The closest thing to a witness is the supposed girlfriend which can only supply testimony up to the point the two parties met face to face.

With only a timeline and 3rd party phone calls to contradict Zimmerman's account of the altercation the best any honest DA should stretch this out to is manslaughter. And with FL laws being what they are there's reason to suspect be should be found innocent of that too given the few provable facts that exist.

People can get as outraged as they like about the incident but a criminal court shouldn't allow itself to be pressured by public opinion.

This is both hilarious and expected though:
Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel
Unfortunately, you obviously don't know much about the case. Zimmerman did the right thing by calling 911, which Neighborhood Watch volunteers are supposed to do. They are not supposed to confront anyone, especially after the dispatcher tells Zimmerman that he doesn't want him getting out of his vehicle. They also aren't supposed to carry weapons (if they're actually part of the Neighborhood Watch group, and I'll concede that we don't know if Zimmerman's group was). Zimmerman was the initiator of this incident, and the result is that a young man was judged, tried and executed by vigilante justice, and Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death. If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his vehicle, as he was told not to, Martin would most likely be alive today. Zimmerman's life was not in danger, until he placed it in that position. He was shielded by his vehicle, and distance, and had absolutely no reason to confront Martin. Zimmerman is not a sworn peace officer, yet he took on that role, and he has Martin's blood on his hands.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There's zero chance this guy is going to be charged with capital murder much less a possibility he could be found guilty of it. There's no evidence to support the charges. The closest thing to a witness is the supposed girlfriend which can only supply testimony up to the point the two parties met face to face.

With only a timeline and 3rd party phone calls to contradict Zimmerman's account of the altercation the best any honest DA should stretch this out to is manslaughter. And with FL laws being what they are there's reason to suspect be should be found innocent of that too given the few provable facts that exist.

People can get as outraged as they like about the incident but a criminal court shouldn't allow itself to be pressured by public opinion.

This is both hilarious and expected though:
Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman - Orlando Sentinel
What is the justification for the killing? Self defence for a fight he instigated?

Take away the gun issue here (which I think is irrelevant to the story), and we are left with a guy who picked a fight with another guy, and ended up killing him. Without the gun issue, are you still defending this guy for killing someone that initially posed no threat to anyone?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 05:48 PM
 
It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not because you're simply wrong.

Everything the three of you said may be all well and good to help win in a civil trial but in a criminal court it is not going to get you very far.
The rules for neighborhood watch members are irrelevant. They are guidelines set to help civilians remain safe. Failing to follow those rules does not constitute a breach of law.
Zimmerman did follow the boy and he may very well have initiated the confrontation but there is no chain of evidence to prove that beyond that point he is guilty of murder. There were no witnesses who saw the entire incident. The calls to 911 did not record anything to contradict Zimmerman's account of the events that transpired. The girlfriend's testimony is limited to what happened up until the point of the confrontation.

The guy could be the most prejudiced unlikable prick in the whole world but there's no proof that Treyvonne didn't get so angry at being accused and verbally accosted that he didn't take the first swing at Zimmerman when his back was turned and escalated the events. Presumptions on what happened when the two met are conjecture and that's what you ladies are offering up to say that a court can convict a person of a capital crime. The lack of corroborating evidence is what causes your arguments to fall short.

If you could get past your self righteousness (I know, great odds of that happening) you'd see that this is not about defending Zimmerman but rather pointing out that the court system needs actual evidence to prove guilt. Its you who don't know anything about the Zimmerman case because what's been disclosed up to this point doesn't amount to proof of murder. Its that simple.

He may have violated some gun laws or misdemeanors in initiating the confrontation but he isn't contesting that as far as I heard. All we're left with to tell us what happened when to two met face to face is Zimmerman's testimony and you guys and your mountain of outrage isn't going to disprove his account. Like I said maybe a really over reaching DA can file manslaughter charges but an unbiased jury should probably find him innocent on that based on what can be proved. In a civil wrongful death case you can beat this guy's head into the wall but that isn't really the sense of "justice" you kids are looking to exact, is it?

Also I don't think the Muslim black panthers care so much Zimmerman is half hispanic as much as they don't like the fact he's half jewish
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Mar 25, 2012 at 06:10 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
the court system needs actual evidence to prove guilt.
They have evidence! The fact that he fired a fatal bullet is not in dispute, and if it was then I'm sure ballistics and other forensics could demonstrate it. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This isn't like Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson, where "everyone knows" they did it but it can't be proved. This case is different because it's not in dispute that he "did it," what's in dispute is why he did it, and so the burden of proof is on the defense not the prosecution.

Edit: think I found an example, specific to FL even:
"If a defendant in a criminal case does not admit doing anything of criminal nature, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In such a situation, it is the task of the prosecution to present enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, a Miami attorney would also advice you to present an alibi to raise a reasonable doubt.

However, the burden of proof shifts in an affirmative defense. In such a circumstance, it is the duty of the defendant’s attorney to prove that though the defendant committed the criminal act, particular grounds make it excusable. For example, inducement to commit a crime by a government official was the reason for committing it."

http://americanlegaljournal.com/crim...inal-case.html

So the difference is that we already start with the situation where he committed a criminal act (shooting someone to death).
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Mar 25, 2012 at 07:34 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
If you could get past your self righteousness (I know, great odds of that happening)

Talk about irony. Pot, kettle. I thought about not replying to your post, and, as usual, your arrogance shines through, Mr. J. D.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
They have evidence! The fact that he fired a fatal bullet is not in dispute, and if it was then I'm sure ballistics and other forensics could demonstrate it. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This isn't like Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson, where "everyone knows" they did it but it can't be proved. This case is different because it's not in dispute that he "did it," what's in dispute is why he did it, and so the burden of proof is on the defense not the prosecution.

Edit: think I found an example, specific to FL even:
"If a defendant in a criminal case does not admit doing anything of criminal nature, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In such a situation, it is the task of the prosecution to present enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, a Miami attorney would also advice you to present an alibi to raise a reasonable doubt.

However, the burden of proof shifts in an affirmative defense. In such a circumstance, it is the duty of the defendant’s attorney to prove that though the defendant committed the criminal act, particular grounds make it excusable. For example, inducement to commit a crime by a government official was the reason for committing it."

The American Legal Journal

So the difference is that we already start with the situation where he committed a criminal act (shooting someone to death).
No, not really.
First of all shooting someone to death is not a criminal act in every circumstance. So while the fact he shot the boy is not in dispute there is a question if it was a prosecutable offense. Your characterization of this act as criminal is disingenuous.

Secondly the existence of FL's Stand Your Ground law can in theory give him the authority to act because there you have the lawful right to defend yourself under a broader set of circumstances. The premise of an affirmative defense is negated because no law may have been broken so the burden to prove this case falls back on the prosecution.

If Zimmerman had escaped the altercation unscathed there'd be at least greater ground to question whether he had reasonable justification to act against the boy at all. Without signs of being in physical danger its difficult to make a claim that you had reason to believe your well-being was compromised to the point you needed to use deadly force.
However the placement of Zimmerman's head injury (along with the other trauma) gives a believable claim that he was struck from behind and thus could support his version of the story. All the defense needs to provide is a reasonable scenario and sell one jury member on it.

Zimmerman may have instigated the series of events but without knowing what transpired once they met its difficult to prove who was the first to act out physically against the other. Nothing that's been put out to the public so far has the weight to disprove his story that it was Martin who acted first. The collective arguments you've all made isn't going to trump that fact.

This has become so political that there's no way he could escape some charges. The fact that the DA is convening a grand jury to cover his ass is fact of that alone. I am sure there will be all sorts of indictments handed down simply because they have such a low bar to meet to file each count. How that is going to translate into what he'll actually face in court however may be very different. I'd be surprised if they gather enough to lock him up for 5 to 8 years.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Mar 26, 2012 at 12:16 AM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
First of all shooting someone to death is not a criminal act in every circumstance.
What are the circumstances under which shooting someone to death is not a criminal act?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 04:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Geraldo's got this one: he was killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

He even brings up the comparison that Muslims in religious garb invite suspicion on themselves for "dressing like terrorists." Seriously. I'm surprised he didn't bring up the "dressing like a slut" defence too.
Are you trying to say that woman who dress slutty are not trying to look slutty?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
As a American of Mexican/Spanish descent, it's the last thing I want to see. Until the facts come out, we can't say it was an "execution" Where was he shot? In the head, the back, or the front? I would venture to say that figured into the decision not to file charges.
Lets set aside the part about WHERE is was shot and focus on the part that he WAS shot period....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
What are the circumstances under which shooting someone to death is not a criminal act?
Home invasion, and self defense, where a reasonable person could conclude that one's life is in danger. Many states abide by the Castle Doctrine, which basically states that one has no duty to retreat if one feels one's life is in danger, either in their home or on their property.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Lets set aside the part about WHERE is was shot and focus on the part that he WAS shot period....
Why? Where has a lot to do with intent. (executed was how lpkmckenna put it) ABC says he was shot in the chest, not in the back or in the head.

Trayvon Martin Killing Lead Prosecutor Says George Zimmerman Could Walk - ABC News
I find this part interesting:
While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death.

Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
No, not really.
First of all shooting someone to death is not a criminal act in every circumstance. So while the fact he shot the boy is not in dispute there is a question if it was a prosecutable offense. Your characterization of this act as criminal is disingenuous.

Secondly the existence of FL's Stand Your Ground law can in theory give him the authority to act because there you have the lawful right to defend yourself under a broader set of circumstances. The premise of an affirmative defense is negated because no law may have been broken so the burden to prove this case falls back on the prosecution.
The same could be said for ALL affirmative defenses. If it's the way you describe, then no case of self-defense, justifiable homicide, mental illness defense, or entrapment would ever be used because they would never have been arrested. They wouldn't be called "defense" in the first place because there would be nothing to "defend" against. It's not a crime (if indeed it's not) because of the affirmative defense of self-defense (or whatever he decides to go with).
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Mar 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Why? Where has a lot to do with intent. (executed was how lpkmckenna put it) ABC says he was shot in the chest, not in the back or in the head.

Trayvon Martin Killing Lead Prosecutor Says George Zimmerman Could Walk - ABC News
I find this part interesting:
Tall athletic teen vs overweight late 20s guy... overweight guy ends up with grass stains and scratches on his back.

Anyone know why Trayvon was suspended from school?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Anyone know why Trayvon was suspended from school?
From what I read it involved tardiness.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:13 PM
 
alleged screen capture from brother's twitter page.

Non Hoodie pic
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:17 PM
 
What is that supposed to illustrate?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Update: The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported today, March 26th, that Trayvon's ten day suspension was related to marijuana. This, and a cryptic comment by his father that was quoted in the above Kansas City Star article, suggest he was caught smoking marijuana on school property.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Trayvon Martin's ten day suspension - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com Trayvon Martin's ten day suspension - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

from the KC star article
"He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn't a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area (on school property)," Martin said, declining to offer more details.

Read more here: Trayvon's parents paint portrait of typical teenager - KansasCity.com
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:28 PM
 
Zimmerman's account
Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's account to police of the Trayvon Martin shooting. - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.

Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there's been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witnesses, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest from very close range, according to authorities.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What is that supposed to illustrate?
This

as opposed to this. How old is he in this photo?


The same for Zimmerman. we've all seen the mug shot

This is one from his employer
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Scary black kid?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
From what I read it involved tardiness.
Drug possession... recall Zimmerman's statement on the 911 call that he thought Martin was on drugs.

Also Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and an injury to the back of his head.

Witness claims it was Zimmerman on the ground and Trayvon beating him up, and that it was Zimmerman who was screaming.

So the overzealous neighborhood patrol guy confronts a stranger and gets beat up.
( Last edited by mduell; Mar 26, 2012 at 02:42 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Drug possession... recall Zimmerman's statement on the 911 call that he thought Martin was on drugs.
Apparently the kid was found to be in possession of a plastic bag that had traces of marijuana residue and he was suspended from school. That being said, Zimmerman had no basis to say that the kid was "on drugs" sitting in an SUV at a distance. Unless of course walking down the street talking on a cell phone with your girlfriend is indicative of drug use? In any event, the kid's body was tested for drugs and he had none in his system. Zimmerman was supposed to be tested as well per standard procedure but the local police failed to do so.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Also Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and an injury to the back of his head.
This has never been in dispute. I said in one of my earlier posts that the kid apparently got some licks in.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Witness claims it was Zimmerman on the ground and Trayvon beating him up, and that it was Zimmerman who was screaming.
So now we have a new witness saying this. But in the OP I linked to an article that contained the contemporaneous 911 audio tapes where a witness clearly says a guy in a white t-shirt was on top ... not the kid in the dark hoodie ... and the kid was yelling for help. We have another 911 caller saying two guys were wrestling out back. In such a struggle who's on top and who's on the bottom can easily shift. Not too mention the kid's mother identified his voice on the 911 tapes screaming for help. I'd venture to say that a mother knows these things.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
So the overzealous neighborhood patrol guy confronts a stranger and gets beat up.
Exactly. In one of my earlier posts I said as much:

Originally Posted by OAW
3. Mr. Zimmerman follows and confronts this kid. Despite the 911 dispatcher instructing him not to and despite the fact that he has no legal authority to stop, detain, or question this kid whatsoever.

4. A verbal dispute escalates into a physical altercation. Considering the fact that Mr. Zimmerman outweighed this kid by 100 lbs I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is unlikely that the kid was the one who took it there. This is also borne out by the girlfriend's testimony who overhead the confrontation over the phone.

5. The kid fights back ... as he should have. Other neighbors who called 911 reported two guys wrestling out back. The kid must have gotten a few good licks in despite their size difference because the cops said Mr. Zimmerman was bloodied when they arrived on the scene. Fearing that he just might get his ass kicked, in an utter and complete display of "bitchassness" ... Mr. Zimmerman doesn't finish the fistfight/wrestling match he started like a man. Win or lose. Instead, he pulls a gun on a kid who he outweighed by 100 lbs! The kid begins to scream help for his life ... but Mr. Zimmerman decides pump some hot lead into the kid's chest nevertheless.
At the end of the day, the cell phone logs completely undermine Zimmerman's story. The kid was on the phone with his girlfriend until moments before he was shot. By Zimmerman's own statement on the 911 tape the kid ran away from him. Zimmerman follows the kid in defiance of the 911 dispatcher's instruction, confronts him, and per the girlfriend's statement she heard Zimmerman push young Trayvon and knock the phone out of his hand. The line dropped. A scuffle broke out. And moments later the kid was dead.

I'm sorry ... you can't initiate a conflict, start to get your ass kicked, pull out a gun to shoot the guy ... and then try to claim "self defense". And if this "Stand Your Ground" statute in Florida allows for that then clearly this is a piece of legislation that sorely needs revisiting.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 26, 2012 at 03:10 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm sorry ... you can't initiate a conflict, start to get your ass kicked, pull out a gun to shoot the guy ... and then try to claim "self defense". And if this "Stand Your Ground" statute in Florida allows for that then clearly this is a piece of legislation that sorely needs revisiting.

OAW
Exactly. Martin is dead because Zimmerman failed to follow a number of Neighborhood Watch protocols, including carrying a weapon and confronting a suspect. Zimmerman played cop, when he wasn't authorized to do so, and as such is responsible for Martin's death. I also doubt that the Stand Your Ground law is broad enough to cover this circumstance, as Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground; he was initiating the conflict.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The same could be said for ALL affirmative defenses. If it's the way you describe, then no case of self-defense, justifiable homicide, mental illness defense, or entrapment would ever be used because they would never have been arrested. They wouldn't be called "defense" in the first place because there would be nothing to "defend" against. It's not a crime (if indeed it's not) because of the affirmative defense of self-defense (or whatever he decides to go with).

No it couldn't.
Law are different from state to state.

The difference being that in one place you may have broken a law and thus need to explain that there was justifiable reason that you had to do it. In another place you violated no law because the statutes allow you to commit the action.

Its why some people are all in a huff about the Stand Your Ground issue. If not for that Zimmerman would have no choice but to stand trial for the shooting and it would all be sorted out in court. Since the DA has yet been unable to prove that what happened is not covered under that law then you can't charge Zimmerman with what the lynch mob in here wants him to be convicted for. Unfortunately for you kids it apparently was written to cover such a broad area of situations that the police said he could go on his merry way.



Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A scuffle broke out. And moments later the kid was dead.

I'm sorry ... you can't initiate a conflict, start to get your ass kicked, pull out a gun to shoot the guy ... and then try to claim "self defense". And if this "Stand Your Ground" statute in Florida allows for that then clearly this is a piece of legislation that sorely needs revisiting.
That's right. A scuffle did break out. However what you don't know is who initiated the physical contact.

As much as you may not like it Zimmerman broke no law confronting Martin and asking him who he was and why he was there. And no one knows what happened once that occurred. And therein lies the problem with your argument. Zimmerman may have tried to restrain him or equally as likely Martin may have suckerpunched him. Which of those is true makes all the difference in the world.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Mar 26, 2012 at 05:14 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
No it couldn't.
Law are different from state to state.
I already quoted a legal reference specific to FL state

Its why some people are all in a huff about the Stand Your Ground issue. If not for that Zimmerman would have no choice but to stand trial for the shooting and it would all be sorted out in court. Since the DA has yet been unable to prove that what happened is not covered under that law then you can't charge Zimmerman with what the lynch mob in here wants him to be convicted for. Unfortunately for you kids it apparently was written to cover such a broad area of situations that the police said he could go on his merry way.
So lets look directly at the law:

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force"

This is the only part that doesn't refer to a "dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle," and it just so happens that Zimmerman chasing down a stranger in order to pick a fight with him (assault) doesn't meet the condition of "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity."

And guess what, kiddo, the author of the law agrees with me.

"It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."


So.... it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not, because you're simply wrong
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Across the river from Trump Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I already quoted a legal reference specific to FL state


So lets look directly at the law:

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force"

This is the only part that doesn't refer to a "dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle," and it just so happens that Zimmerman chasing down a stranger in order to pick a fight with him (assault) doesn't meet the condition of "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity."

And guess what, kiddo, the author of the law agrees with me.

"It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."


So.... it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not, because you're simply wrong
lol

You do understand that if what you are claiming had any semblance of being correct that the DA would have already charged and arrested Zimmerman, right?
That thus far they've been unable to prove that the statue doesn't apply is why they are scrambling to find a loop hole and reaching out to Federal statutes to find something to charge Zimmerman with.
What's at issue is not if Martin had violated a law by simply being there and Zimmerman could shoot him for that. Its is if once confronted by Zimmerman he reacted with violence. Characterizing Zimmerman's pursuit of the boy as an attempt to pick a fight does not mean that its going to be legally construed as such. He can engage any individual in public space and direct questions at them. They are under no obligation to answer to Zimmerman but in initiating the situation Zimmerman also broke no laws if all that transpired was a verbal exchange.

You trying to interpret this is cute. Its like when you see a video of a 3 year old pretending to drive a car.
You just want to pat them on the head and say, "hang in there big guy, you'll get there someday."

Also you do know that various branches of state government do different things right? The author of the bill, part of the legislative branch, only writes the laws. The state judicial branch is the one that interprets those laws and decides how what's written can or cannot be applied.
So Sen. Peaden can say anything he wants because his opinion has no bearing on the Zimmerman case. In fact if he values his job and given public opinion he sure as hell should take a stance against how its being used because its his gross incompetence as author of the law that is responsible for what people are upset about.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Mar 26, 2012 at 05:59 PM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:35 PM
 
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.

Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.
Now juxtapose that with this excerpt from later in the same article ....

Martin's girlfriend had said in a recording obtained exclusively by ABC News that she heard Martin ask Zimmerman "why are your following me, and then the man asked, what are you doing around here." She then heard a scuffle break out and the line went dead.

Phone records obtained by ABC News show that the girl, who is 16 and asked to remain anonymous, called Martin at 7:12 p.m., five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the phone with Martin until moments before he was shot.
Trayvon Martin Shooter Says Teenager Went for His Gun - ABC News

So now we are supposed to believe that the kid ran away from Zimmerman and ditched him. Then Zimmerman supposedly heads back to his car and the kid who was afraid of him just two seconds earlier all of a sudden decides to follow Zimmerman and launch a physical attack? All while conducting a cell phone conversation that phone records indicate wasn't interrupted until moments before he was shot? So the kid was beating Zimmerman's ass one-handed now? Woooowwwww .... that's a really neat trick.

And just how does the kid supposedly go for Zimmerman's gun unless the latter had already brandished the weapon?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:57 PM
 
Don't turn your back in a fight:

With 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 several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

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

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


Zimmerman also claims that Martin tried to take his gun.

In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.

If Zimmerman is on the ground and not in a position to run away, “stand your ground” irrelevant, it's just self-defense in any jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not too mention the kid's mother identified his voice on the 911 tapes screaming for help. I'd venture to say that a mother knows these things.
And I'm sure she has no bias at all.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 06:58 PM
 
I am with Uncle Skeleton's assessment on this one. I think he nailed it dead on. Just because he has not been charged with a crime means nothing.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
You do understand that if what you are claiming had any semblance of being correct that the DA would have already charged and arrested Zimmerman, right?
Or the DA is incompetent, lazy, corrupt, racist, stubborn, or possesses some other human imperfection.

That thus far they've been unable to prove that the statue doesn't apply is why they are scrambling to find a loop hole and reaching out to Federal statutes to find something to charge Zimmerman with.
What's at issue is not if Martin had violated a law by simply being there and Zimmerman could shoot him for that. Its is if once confronted by Zimmerman he reacted with violence. Characterizing Zimmerman's pursuit of the boy as an attempt to pick a fight does not mean that its going to be legally construed as such. He can engage any individual in public space and direct questions at them. They are under no obligation to answer to Zimmerman but in initiating the situation Zimmerman also broke no laws if all that transpired was a verbal exchange.
If you believe everything Zimmerman says and don't question, investigate or generally do any policework, then yes you are completely correct. If on the other hand, you believe that maybe people who have just admittedly shot and killed someone don't necessarily always tell the truth, then it's clear that this matter merits a trial (or plea bargain).

You trying to interpret this is cute. Its like when you see a video of a 3 year old pretending to drive a car.
You just want to pat them on the head and say, "hang in there big guy, you'll get there someday."
You must be really desperate if you think that's going to work. I hope you didn't strain a muscle thinking up that well-reasoned and documented rationalization

Also you do know that various branches of state government do different things right? The author of the bill, part of the legislative branch, only writes the laws. The state judicial branch is the one that interprets those laws and decides how what's written can or cannot be applied.
So Sen. Peaden can say anything he wants because his opinion has no bearing on the Zimmerman case. In fact if he values his job and given public opinion he sure as hell should take a stance against how its being used because its his gross incompetence as author of the law that is responsible for what people are upset about.
You do realize that the DA is under the same pressure, right? To make his earlier decision(s) not look like gross incompetence?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So now we are supposed to believe that the kid ran away from Zimmerman and ditched him. Then Zimmerman supposedly heads back to his car and the kid who was afraid of him just two seconds earlier all of a sudden decides to follow Zimmerman and launch a physical attack? All while conducting a cell phone conversation that phone records indicate wasn't interrupted until moments before he was shot? So the kid was beating Zimmerman's ass one-handed now? Woooowwwww .... that's a really neat trick.

And just how does the kid supposedly go for Zimmerman's gun unless the latter had already brandished the weapon?
You're completely right, nothing about Zimmerman's account makes sense. A skinny teenager attacked an armed, husky adult? Does anyone realize how skinny a 6'3" person of only 150 lbs is? When I was 17, I was about 6' and 160 lbs, and I was really skinny.

And if Zimmerman was the one screaming on the ground, why did the screaming completely stop dead the moment of the gun shot? Sorry, it was the kid screaming in agony, not Zimmerman.

This man is lying his ass off and needs to be put on trial pronto.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Mar 26, 2012 at 08:36 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
And I'm sure she has no bias at all.
Well she's certainly less biased than Mr. Zimmerman seeing as how she doesn't have criminal charges hanging over her head.

At the end of the day, Mr. Zimmerman's story is contradicted by the cell phone logs. It's also rather nonsensical to think that a kid who was scared enough to run away from Mr. Zimmerman is all of a sudden going to approach the person he's trying to get away from. We know based upon Mr. Zimmerman's own words on the 911 tapes that he was following the kid despite being told not to. Now we are supposed to believe that when he finally caught up with the kid he just turned around and headed back to his SUV? Doesn't say anything. Doesn't do anything. Just turns around and tries to leave the scene? Then WTF was the point of following him in the first place then? I'm sorry ... but that doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Mr. Zimmerman's story is preposterous. He should be brought up on charges and face a jury of his peers. Period.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 08:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You're completely right, nothing about Zimmerman's account makes sense. A skinny teenager attacked an armed, husky adult? Does anyone realize how skinny a 6'3" person of only 150 lbs is? When I was 17, I was about 6' and 160 lbs, and I was really skinny.

And if Zimmerman was the one screaming on the ground, why did the screaming completely stop dead the moment of the gun shot? Sorry, it was the kid screaming in agony, not Zimmerman.

This man is lying his ass off and needs to be put on trial pronto.
Exactly! Now I'm 6' tall. When I graduated high school I was 140 lbs soaking wet. And boy was I skinny. Like a 28 inch waist kind of skinny. Which was a problem because I was tall enough for men's clothes but the smallest waist size on the rack was 32 inches. By the time I graduated college I was about 150 lbs and I STILL had to get the waist taken in on any pair of slacks I bought. Might have had a 30 inch waist by then. Now just imagine stretching a frame like that 3 more inches but keeping the weight the same. This kid was REED THIN. No history of violence or fighting. But we are supposed to believe that after running away from Mr. Zimmerman he all of a sudden decides to approach a man who outweighed him by 100 lbs and pick a fight? Riiggggghhhttttttt!!!!

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:17 PM
 
As far as the weight issue goes, we've got plenty of references in social media to Martin being a fighter: the Thanksgiving fight and the bus driver. Despite his reported height/weight, he looks pretty muscled.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
From what I read it involved tardiness.
You were right, he was suspended for tardiness/truancy, but not this time:

According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f---,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police.

The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

The suspension was the third for the teen. On Monday, the family also acknowledged Trayvon had earlier been suspended for tardiness and truancy.


Graffiti, drug/paraphernalia possession, truancy, and possession of, ah, "a friends" jewelery? Not quite the picture his family/friends painted.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
At the end of the day, Mr. Zimmerman's story is contradicted by the cell phone logs.

Mr. Zimmerman's story is preposterous. He should be brought up on charges and face a jury of his peers.
Zimmerman's story is corroborated by witnesses.

It's unclear charges should be filed. This is why we have prosecutorial discretion rather than the New Black Panther lynch militia.

Should you listen to 911? Absolutely. Is it illegal or does it waive any right not to? Nope.
( Last edited by mduell; Mar 26, 2012 at 10:38 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Graffiti, drug/paraphernalia possession, truancy, and posession of, ah, "a friends" property? Not quite the picture his family/friends painted.
It looks like the police are demonizing the victim to cover their own asses. The fact that he was a typical troublemaking teenager is irrelevant.

Zimmerman's story is corroborated by witnesses.
No it isn't. The person who saw Zimmerman on the ground under Martin didn't see the shooting. The fact that the two were fighting and at one point Martin might have had the upper hand is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman started the whole thing. You don't get to instigate a fight and then end it by killing your opponent, and then get off scot-free because at one point your victim landed a lucky blow in self-defence. I mean, if someone was threatening you with a gun, wouldn't you fight back with all your might?

Anyone notice that we've heard about Zimerman's injuries, but not Martin's injuries? If we learn that Zimmerman hurt Martin, would that affect anything in your mind? Because I think the cops are hiding Martin's pre-shooting injuries.

And think about Zimmerman's injuries: he alleges that Martin was banging his head into the pavement, but no hospitalization was required at all? And so there is no official medical report on the extent of Martin's injuries? Gee, that's convenient.

I find it incredible the typical reaction of Zimmerman defenders is "self-defence." Isn't it possible that Martin was acting in self-defence too? He was being stalked by a big man with a gun!

I also find it incredible that anyone thinks pot use by a teenager means anything. Pot doesn't make people violent. I find it impossible to believe a kid on pot attacked someone, and we don't have any reason to believe Martin was actually high at the time anyway. There's a body in the morgue; why don't the cops do a drug screen? Or did they do a drug screen, it was negative, and they are hiding that fact from the public?

What the police are telling us and what they are not telling us is extremely important. The police are telling half the story to the media, and we need the whole story. We need a trial.

Here's what I think happened: Zimmerman chased Martin, Zimmerman grabbed Martin, Martin punched Zimmerman in self-defence, Martin fell on the ground and hit his head, Zimmerman shot Martin.

There's a self-defence case here, but it's Martin, not Zimmerman.

EDIT: the only question is: when did Martin get injured so badly that he howled for over a minute until being shot to death?
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Mar 26, 2012 at 10:59 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:10 PM
 
I'd like to ask the Zimmerman defenders a simple question: who is more likely to be the aggressor: a skinny kid who smokes pot and sprays graffiti, or a gun-carrying hall monitor who once attacked a police officer and once had a restraining order against him for alleged domestic violence?

If we're gonna demonize the victim, we should demonize the shooter too.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:15 PM
 
OMG. This kid smokes pot and writes graffiti.

That makes him violent and deserves to be killed.

He is black and has a hoodie. Another reason to be killed.

/sarcasm
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:22 PM
 
Zimmerman resisted arrest and attacks officer. He gets a trial and gets off with a fine.

Martin attacks Zimmerman for following him. Zimmerman gives him the death penalty.

Zimmerman got away with a fine and Martin got the death penalty. Difference between a police officer and a guy pretending to be one.


Shouldn't Zimmerman get the same treatment he has given the kid? I think the police officer should have shot and killed Zimmerman in self defense.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2012, 11:37 PM
 
Once Zimmerman got out of his car nothing he does can be considered self defence.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2