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 7)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"Discussing?" More like "rejecting." Any attorney who can't win a self-defense case with no witnesses should be disbarred. They can just make shit up, after all.

My point is that blaming the law for something that's true of many/most other laws, will not solve anything. It's a placebo. It's an unfortunate fact of reality that with no witnesses and only circumstantial evidence, and a general presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not all murderers can be punished. "Stand your ground" or "duty to retreat" are just scapegoats.
My point is that without a stand your ground law you aren't presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove you had no choice.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
Which is easy to do when you can lie because there's no evidence to contradict you.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Here is a photo of Martin a few days before he was shot. There was better one shown on CNN, but I can't find it
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Here is a photo of Martin a few days before he was shot. There was better one shown on CNN, but I can't find it
Once again, what is this supposed to reveal to us?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 04:01 PM
 
I was just wondering the same thing?

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 04:13 PM
 
That he's not the 12 year old kid wearing the Hollistor shirt anymore.


I do like this one!

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 04:16 PM
 
So, have a lot of people in here been beating that drum or are you just throwing shit at the wall as usual?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Which is easy to do when you can lie because there's no evidence to contradict you.
In a stand your ground state the defense has to show (A) the defendant was in fear for their life.

In a duty to retreat state the defense has to show (A) and (B) that they couldn't retreat.

Aren't the odds going to be A+B will be harder to show than A alone?

Won't it be more likely that for whatever combination of irrefutable evidence exists in any particular scenario, it will be harder to lie around A+B than just A?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 04:45 PM
 
More and more it's looking like 'Stand Your Ground' laws, certainly in Florida, need to be rewritten or tossed in favor of more logical self-defense laws.

I agree with the concept, but if this is how it gets abused, then the law itself is rotten.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In a stand your ground state the defense has to show (A) the defendant was in fear for their life.

In a duty to retreat state the defense has to show (A) and (B) that they couldn't retreat.

Aren't the odds going to be A+B will be harder to show than A alone?

Won't it be more likely that for whatever combination of irrefutable evidence exists in any particular scenario, it will be harder to lie around A+B than just A?
It's like asking whether it's harder to evade 1 car driving at you, or 2 cars driving in series (one behind the other). Either the defense has total freedom to mold the facts (there is no evidence besides the defendant's testimony), or they don't. If they do, then crafting lies to account for one requirement is pretty much the same as accounting for 10 requirements, as it's the same circumstance that allows both: the lack of any other evidence. It's probably harder to make something up on the spot, but I don't think it would be less possible, given time to prepare.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That he's not the 12 year old kid wearing the Hollistor shirt anymore.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Uhhh .... ok. I don't know how old the kid was in the picture in the Hollister. Teenage boys can sprout up several inches in a matter of months as my own son has done. It seemed like one day he was a kid compared to me in terms of height and the next he was nearly looking me in my eye. In any event, it has been stated repeatedly in every news article that the kid was 17. So the million dollar question is ... what difference does the picture of him looking older make? Is it somehow more "acceptable" for him to have been shot dead for walking down the street with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea if he was 17 instead of 12?

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 06:56 PM
 
No it doesn't make it anymore acceptable and neither is making it look like Zimmerman gunned down a 12 year old kid.

It makes for a better wanted poster.


The top is what we've all seen of the past weeks, the bottom would not help make Zimmerman look like the racist vigilante he has been made out to be.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:04 PM
 
I didn't think anyone could top Geraldo's theory of what's going to break this case wide open. Bravo Chongo.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The top is what we've all seen of the past weeks, the bottom would not help make Zimmerman look like the racist vigilante he has been made out to be.
What's your argument? The mainstream media is pro-black and anti-hispanic?

You see some conpsiracy theory and media bias.

I see the media trying to push out news as soon as possible so they publish whatever image that can get ahold off first.

For Zimmerman, it's his mug shot from his 2005 arrest.
For Martin, it's a picture provided by his parents.


Michelle Malkin tried to make the same media bias/conspiracy theory case and it blew up in her face because she ended posted up some other black kid's photo.

The media posted verified photos of the victim and suspect. Idiotic Michelle Malkin did not.
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
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:30 PM
 
One thing is for sure, the race-bait coalition is acting like a bunch of assholes over this case, as usual.

I hope the wrong Zimmerman family that pro-league asshole Spike Lee targeted sues the living snot out of him. Beyond that, I hope he's arrested for invading their privacy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
One thing is for sure, the race-bait coalition is acting like a bunch of assholes over this case, as usual.

I hope the wrong Zimmerman family that pro-league asshole Spike Lee targeted sues the living snot out of him. Beyond that, I hope he's arrested for invading their privacy.
If that is the case, Michelle Malkin would have been arrested over a dozen times for posting people's private information on her websites.
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: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
When I first heard the audio, I thought he said 'f*cking coons'. But honestly, it could've been 'f*cking goons'.

I'll give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt because he doesn't have a history be being a racist and how likely is someone in his late 20's using the word 'coon'. More likely, it's 'goons'.

I don't believe Zimmerman is a racist, but I do believe there was racial profiling and a racial component.
I'll be honest, when in the US I do feel intimidated by Black Americans. Mostly due to whats on TV, and what I see on the news. Its not because they are black and because they must be up to no good. I'm more fear full of because I'm White and all the abuse they suffer am I in danger because of it. And its only in the US especially in mostly Black communities. I don't think I'm racist but I can concede because I get that uneasy feeling I am profiling based on the what I see on TV. I don't think that is racism itself.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I'll be honest, when in the US I do feel intimidated by Black Americans. Mostly due to whats on TV, and what I see on the news. Its not because they are black and because they must be up to no good. I'm more fear full of because I'm White and all the abuse they suffer am I in danger because of it. And its only in the US especially in mostly Black communities. I don't think I'm racist but I can concede because I get that uneasy feeling I am profiling based on the what I see on TV. I don't think that is racism itself.
I appreciate your honesty in this post. What you have just outlined here is the fundamental difference between racism ... and prejudice or bias. One of the main problems in the US is that all too often when the topic of "race" comes up there's this knee-jerk reaction among many of our more "melanin -challenged" brothers and sisters that the issue is about the former and not the latter. It's like there's this defensiveness where they assume that people are being accused of being a Klan member or a white supremacist or something. Case in point with this situation. A WHOLE lot of people are of the mind that this kid was "racially profiled" by Mr. Zimmerman. And there's plenty of reason to think so. Yet his family and supporters immediately start protesting and pushing back saying that Mr. Zimmerman is not a "racist". As if one has to be some sort of Aryan Nation skinhead or believe that blacks are genetically inferior in order to display prejudice or bias on the basis of race! The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who are by no means "racist" who at times display prejudicial or biased attitudes. Unfortunately, these issues are only exacerbated when people choose to conflate the two or pretend that neither exists.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 09:58 PM
 
The plot thickens even more ....

A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who says he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.

The surveillance video, which was obtained exclusively by ABC News, shows Zimmerman arriving in a police cruiser. As he exits the car, his hands are cuffed behind his back. Zimmerman is frisked and then led down a series of hallways, still cuffed.

Zimmerman, 28, is wearing a red and black fleece and his face and head are cleanly shaven. He appears well built, hardly the portly young man depicted in a 2005 mug shot that until a two days ago was the single image the media had of Zimmerman.

The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and after medical attention it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning.

His lawyer later insisted that Zimmerman's nose had been broken in his scuffle with 17-year-old Martin.

In the video an officer is seen pausing to look at the back of Zimmerman's head, but no abrasions or blood can be seen in the video and he did not check into the emergency room following the police questioning.

Zimmerman was not arrested although ABC News has learned that the lead homicide investigator filed an affidavit urging Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. The prosecutor, however, told the officer to not file the charge because there was not enough evidence for conviction.

Zimmerman said he was heading back to his car when Martin attacked him. His lawyer, Craig Sonner, said his client felt "one of them was going to die that night," when he pulled the trigger.

Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him in his final moments, told ABC News in an exclusive interview that she has not been interviewed by police, despite Martin telling her he was being followed.

The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead.

"When he saw the man behind him again he said this man is going to do something to him. And then he said this man is still behind him and I said run," she said.

Phone records obtained by ABC News show that the girl 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.

DeeDee said Martin turned around and asked Zimmerman why he was following him.

"The man said what are you doing around here?" DeeDee recalled Zimmerman saying.

She said she heard someone pushed into the grass before the call was dropped.
Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News

And the video footage itself:

George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance | Video - ABC News



OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 28, 2012 at 10:06 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Zimmerman is an obese 250lb guy. That can't be Zimmerman! It's a lie.

Why that guy can't be Zimmerman.
1. Guy don't look like an obese 250lb man
2. Guy doesn't have a gash in his head and bleeding.
3. Guy doesn't have a broken nose and bruised up face.

Thus it can't be Zimmerman.

Liberal media lies!
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.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's like asking whether it's harder to evade 1 car driving at you, or 2 cars driving in series (one behind the other). Either the defense has total freedom to mold the facts (there is no evidence besides the defendant's testimony), or they don't. If they do, then crafting lies to account for one requirement is pretty much the same as accounting for 10 requirements, as it's the same circumstance that allows both: the lack of any other evidence. It's probably harder to make something up on the spot, but I don't think it would be less possible, given time to prepare.
I apologize here if I'm not getting what you're saying, but my understanding of the duty to retreat is that Zimmerman violated it as soon as he started going after the kid. One of the tests is "did you avoid the conflict?"

That's an obvious "no" in this case.

Sure there will be situations where the defense can lie about both, this however isn't one of them.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 08:37 AM
 
The question in this case is "Did you initiate the conflict?"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 08:47 AM
 
I'm not so sure. I think the question very well may be "did you escalate the situation to the point where you became in fear for your life?"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 08:55 AM
 
Also, how do you define "conflict"?

If, hypothetically, the kid was up to no good, should it have been illegal (not okay, whatever you choose) for Zimmerman to have chased and verbally accosted him?


(I feel this is clear, but just in case I want to repeat the above is a hypothetical, both in terms of Martin's intent and Zimmerman's actions)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If, hypothetically, the kid was up to no good, should it have been illegal (not okay, whatever you choose) for Zimmerman to have chased and verbally accosted him?
Only in the defense of anothers person.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
 
That's not an unreasonable position, though I'd tend towards less limiting myself.

IIUC, it's way less limiting in Florida (and in New Hampshire).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Daily Caller found the head lac:



I wonder if there's also high res stills the police took of Zimmerman's injuries.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I apologize here if I'm not getting what you're saying, but my understanding of the duty to retreat is that Zimmerman violated it as soon as he started going after the kid. One of the tests is "did you avoid the conflict?"

That's an obvious "no" in this case.

Sure there will be situations where the defense can lie about both, this however isn't one of them.
What you're missing here is that in my post you replied to I said "what if there were no phone records." In your reply you said "the defense can just make shit up," which I took to mean we agreed to the hypothetical in which there was no evidence. Now you're bringing the evidence back in. That's fine, but it's not what I was talking about since then.

The evidence against his "retreatness" can (and should IMO) apply to both laws, "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat." Because he did neither, he initiated. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of the lawmaker himself. If the law is being interpreted in practice in conflict with the philosophy of the lawmaker, then clearly that is a failure of the judicial system, whose mandate is to interpret the laws. The law itself, as written, does not allow "stand your ground" to cover people initiating a conflict, so wherever that's coming from is either in the executive or judicial sector, and it's the job of the judiciary to put a stop to it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Daily Caller found the head lac:



I wonder if there's also high res stills the police took of Zimmerman's injuries.
Sorry I watched the video 5 times now and cant see it. A single frame shows that while before and after its totally gone. Its just a camera or compression issue or shadowing. You clearly see a normal head in most of it minus this frame.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Daily Caller found the head lac:



I wonder if there's also high res stills the police took of Zimmerman's injuries.
Uhhhh, if that looks like a "laceration" to you then ..... ok.

The video shows the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head from various angles and you see no such thing on any of the others.. On that one angle you see something which at worst might be a minor bump. It could also be his hair or a ridge line in his skull or a shadow. What it clearly doesn't show is someone who had the back of his head bashed repeatedly against a concrete sidewalk as Mr. Zimmerman, his lawyer, and his father have contended. What the video also doesn't show is Mr. Zimmerman with a broken nose ... as he, his lawyer, his father, and his "close friend" Joe Oliver have alleged. If someone gets punched in the nose to the point where it is broken ... typically there will be a cut in the skin across the bridge of the nose where the contact was made. At a minimum there would be swelling and bruising because that process would begin immediately. Yet we see none of that. Not even a little bit. Even if the paramedics on the scene "cleaned up" Mr. Zimmerman there would still be blood on his shirt from a broken nose. Yet we see none of that. If he had a broken nose and the back of his head smashed against the sidewalk repeatedly he would have been transported to the hospital right then and there to A) repair the broken nose, and B) perform a scan on his head to ensure he didn't have a subdural hematoma. Paramedics do not play around when it comes to head injuries because they are not trying to get themselves and their department sued for listening to a guy that says "I'm fine. I'm fine" ... only to have him keel over and die hours later because he wasn't checked out to make sure there was no internal bleeding. But again, that didn't happen ... even after he was released from the police station. What we do see is that this guy has no bandages. He doesn't even have a freaking BAND-AID! His movements and demeanor show no sign of distress or pain. Certainly nothing that would suggest a "life or death" struggle with Trayvon Martin. We also have yet to see any pictures of these supposed injuries that Mr. Zimmerman suffered. Hell we don't even see any dirt or grass stains on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's jacket which was clearly visible. Mr. Zimmerman is obviously lying about suffering a broken nose ... so you don't find it likely that he's also lying about the injuries he allegedly sustained to the back of his head? Or is at least exaggerating them? Especially since he's facing potential charges involving a homicide?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 29, 2012 at 05:02 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 05:03 PM
 
But let's examine some other areas where this "story" doesn't seem to add up:

1. Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, two days after his son's death was given this "official police version" of what happened based upon their supposed investigation and Mr. Zimmerman's account:

A police detective told the father of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin that his son initiated two confrontations with the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot him.

Tracy Martin, describing the police version of events in a meeting Wednesday with Washington Post reporters and editors, said he did not believe the official account, which was conveyed to him two days after his 17-year-old son was killed Feb. 26. The detective’s explanation, as relayed by Martin, largely coincides with recent news reports that George Zimmerman told investigators that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

According to Tracy Martin, the Sanford, Fla., detective recounted this sequence of events: Trayvon Martin walked up to Zimmerman’s vehicle and asked why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following the youth and rolled up the car window. Minutes after Trayvon walked away, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

Then came the second encounter, according to Tracy Martin’s recollection of the detective’s account. Trayvon Martin appeared from behind a building in Zimmerman’s gated community, approached him and demanded, “What’s your problem, homie?”

When Zimmerman replied that he didn’t have a problem, Martin said, “You do now.” The unarmed teenager hit Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, pinned him down and told him to “shut the [expletive] up.”

During the beating, Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired one shot at close range into Martin’s chest. “You got me,” the teenager said, falling backward.


Tracy Martin and the 17-year-old’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said Wednesday that they have never accepted this explanation for their son’s death.

“That was bull,” Tracy Martin said. “No way. At that point, I knew there was something terribly wrong.” The Sanford Police Department said in a statement Wednesday that it will no longer answer questions from the news media.
Tracy Martin recounts police version of son Trayvon's death - The Washington Post

Now at this point ... anyone who's been following this incident should be able to recognize this for the cockamamie story that it is. Unless, of course, one chooses to be willfully obtuse. All you have to do is compare this story to the objective evidence at hand. Mr. Zimmerman called 911 and the conversation is on tape. I listed it in the OP. In it you will see that at no point did this kid come up to Mr. Zimmerman's vehicle. You hear none of this alleged conversation between Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon. In fact, Mr. Zimmerman is speaking to the 911 dispatcher the entire time. He said IN ORDER with no interruptions ...

Originally Posted by George Zimmerman
"Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband."
Originally Posted by George Zimmerman
Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. Can you please get an officer over here?
Originally Posted by George Zimmerman
These assholes they always get away.
Followed by miscellaneous conversation with Mr. Zimmerman giving directions to the 911 dispatcher on how to reach his location, culminating with ...

Originally Posted by George Zimmerman
You go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh ... you go straight in don't turn and make a left. Shit he's running.
And then you clearly hear Mr. Zimmerman exit his vehicle, the chimes of his SUV door being opened and everything, the wind noise in the background. And that's when the 911 dispatcher asked if he was following the kid. At no point do you hear Trayvon approach the vehicle or engage Mr. Zimmerman in any sort of conversation. Mr. Zimmerman in his own words said the kid just took off running.

Which brings us to the supposedly "second" confrontation. Where Mr. Zimmerman claims he had turned around and was headed back to his SUV when Trayvon came up to him from behind ... even though he was running away from him moments earlier. Now this is where Trayvon supposedly punched Mr. Zimmerman in the nose ... even though the mortician who handled his body saw no cuts, bruises, or abrasions on his hands. Per Mr. Zimmerman's father ... a retired judge I might add ... along with his lawyer claim that Trayvon then pounced on top of Mr. Zimmerman after he fell to the ground from this punch that allegedly broke his nose, straddled his chest, and pinned his arms down with his knees. Essentially the same story that Mr. Martin was told by the detectives. Depending on who's doing the telling, some versions then claim that Trayvon was holding Mr. Zimmerman's head on the ground with one hand and punching him with the other. Others claim that Trayvon was banging Mr. Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. They then claim that Mr. Zimmerman struggled to get his arms free and went for his gun that was in a holster in his waistband. Finally, they claim that Trayvon saw the gun, told Mr. Zimmerman that "You are gonna to die tonight!", and went for the gun as well ... and that's when Mr. Zimmerman shot him at close range. Now I want everybody to think about this for a second. If Trayvon was straddling Mr. Zimmerman's chest with his knees pinning down his arms ... then he was essentially in what the UFC fans out there will recognize as a full mount. Which by definition would mean that Mr. Zimmerman's gun that was said to be in a holster in his waistband was behind Trayvon ... even though this would mean that Trayvon "went for the gun" that he wouldn't have even been able to see. Mr. Zimmerman et al claim that Trayvon said "you are gonna die tonight!" to the man with the gun ... even though he was scared enough to run away from Mr. Zimmerman just moments earlier. Mr. Zimmerman then shoots Trayvon in the chest at close range ... even though there is no blood spatter on Mr. Zimmerman's shirt. And then Trayvon allegedly says "You got me!" ... even though that sounds like a bad script from a freaking B movie! And all of this took place in the 1 minute between the end of Trayvon's cell phone call with his girlfriend and police arriving on the scene to find him already dead!

2. Law enforcement officials to date ... over a month since Trayvon's death ... have still not interviewed his girlfriend ... even though she was on the phone with him immediately prior to this death. Perhaps because her statement would also contradict the "official police version" of events?

3. The PDF of the "initial police report" you linked to which was supposedly filled out the night of the incident lists Trayvon's full name, address, DOB, etc. .... even though his body was listed in the morgue as "John Doe".

4. Trayvon's parents still have not been allowed to see the autopsy report. And again ... it's been over a month. I'm especially interested to see what it has to say because it will answer two key questions. A) What were the extent of Trayvon's injuries other than the gunshot wound, if any? B) What was the angle of the bullet wound? Upward, downward, or level? This goes to the heart of who was positioned where when the shot was fired.

5. Why have we seen no pictures of Mr. Zimmerman's injuries or any sort of documentation of medical treatment?

6. If Mr. Zimmerman had his head smashed repeatedly into the sidewalk, why have we heard of no pictures being taken of the blood stains? Was any DNA testing performed on any blood at the scene to identify it as Mr. Zimmerman's?

7. The lead investigator apparently thought Mr. Zimmerman's story was BS ... yet he was overruled by the Chief of Police and the Florida State Attorney himself ... not an assistant who would typically handle such a matter. Who met with the Chief in person on the night of the incident ... as opposed to over the phone which is his typical M.O. IOW, the lead investigator's recommendation to file manslaughter charges was overruled at the highest levels of law enforcement in Florida. Perhaps because Mr. Zimmerman ... who's previously faced charges including resisting arrest with violence, battery of a police officer, and domestic violence ... has a father who's a retired judge from Virginia and has the type of connections to get his son off?

Mr. Zimmerman's story is literally crumbling as each day goes by. If a kid wasn't pushing up daisies behind this sh*t it would almost be funny.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 07:22 PM
 
Several things.

First, who the **** actually believes the police has any duty to release official photographs to the public just to satisfy their rabid curiosity? There are at least 2 other investigations going on by other bodies of law enforcement. There's virtually no reason for them to put photos out there just for the sake of appeasing morons who want to fuel their conspiracy theories.

Secondly, that is a video of a video. Someone with a cell phone recorded a surveillance monitor and leaked it. Its quality is not only sub par but it isn't even part of any chain of evidence that would be used in court. There are more than likely photos taken by investigators of both Zimmerman and Martin at the scene and then later at the station or coroner's office.
Also I don't understand why ABC would choose to hang their banner on the bottom of the screen for 90% of the duration of the video thus obstructing the view.

Lastly, what is possible and what is likely is irrelevant in criminal court. The only thing that matters is what can be proven. Reiterating your theories on what you think transpired as if your opinion matters is nothing but mental masturbation.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Several things.

First, who the **** actually believes the police has any duty to release official photographs to the public just to satisfy their rabid curiosity?
The police have released what they have chosen to release. And leaked what they have chose to leak.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There are at least 2 other investigations going on by other bodies of law enforcement.
Only as as the result of a nationwide uproar.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There's virtually no reason for them to put photos out there just for the sake of appeasing morons who want to fuel their conspiracy theories.
Perhaps that's the way you choose to see it. However, one could credibly argue that the recent "leaks" that were attributed to anonymous sources within the SFD by the Orlando Sentinel were designed to bolster the "official police version" of the events. It coincided with Mr. Zimmerman's story and has been used to deflect criticism of the department for not making an arrest. Photographic evidence of Mr. Zimmerman's alleged injuries would have certainly aided in that endeavor.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Secondly, that is a video of a video. Someone with a cell phone recorded a surveillance monitor and leaked it. Its quality is not only sub par but it isn't even part of any chain of evidence that would be used in court.
And it still shows what it shows. Which justifiably calls Mr. Zimmerman's story into serious question.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
There are more than likely photos taken by investigators of both Zimmerman and Martin at the scene and then later at the station or coroner's office.
Well given the things that we already know the police failed to do as part of this investigation ... "more than likely" gives little comfort.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Also I don't understand why ABC would choose to hang their banner on the bottom of the screen for 90% of the duration of the video thus obstructing the view.
Fair point. That was pretty silly. Having said that, other news organizations are showing the footage unobstructed. It's easy enough to find. And again, the video shows what it shows.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Lastly, what is possible and what is likely is irrelevant in criminal court. The only thing that matters is what can be proven. Reiterating your theories on what you think transpired as if your opinion matters is nothing but mental masturbation.
Your opinion, which matters just about as much as mine, is duly noted ... as is your usual charming disposition. Having said that, the issue on the table is whether or not there is PROBABLE CAUSE for Mr. Zimmerman to be arrested and charged. Or whether he should be allowed to walk. Not what can or can't be proven in criminal court.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 09:20 PM
 
A few things I've missed unrelated to the controversy:

Where was Martin going when he entered Zimmerman's neighborhood? I understand he was returning from a 7/11 and it was raining. Also which 7/11 did he visit? The closest one is a mile away but there's another one two miles away.

Were the Skittles candies and Arizona iced tea recovered? I didn't see them in the police report.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2012, 11:45 PM
 
^^^^^

- He was returning to the home where he was staying in the gated community. It belonged to his father's fiancée.

- Since he was on foot it's logical to presume the closest 7-Eleven.

- It has been universally reported that he had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea along with his cell phone. That hasn't been disputed by anyone. I've not read anything one way or the other as to if the police took possession of them or returned them to the parents.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Daily Caller found the head lac:



I wonder if there's also high res stills the police took of Zimmerman's injuries.
Gee, I seem to recall mentioning that some rightwing websites have been making shit up to defend Zimmerman. And I seem to recall someone questioning me about it that accusation. And yet here you are, spreading their crap around for them. Bra-vo.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Mar 30, 2012 at 12:42 AM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 04:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Gee, I seem to recall mentioning that some rightwing websites have been making shit up to defend Zimmerman. And I seem to recall someone questioning me about it that accusation. And yet here you are, spreading their crap around for them. Bra-vo.
You still haven't answered me as to what the hell this has to do with being right or left wing. I'll wait.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You still haven't answered me as to what the hell this has to do with being right or left wing. I'll wait.
I did answer it: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...7/#post4158753
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What you're missing here is that in my post you replied to I said "what if there were no phone records." In your reply you said "the defense can just make shit up," which I took to mean we agreed to the hypothetical in which there was no evidence. Now you're bringing the evidence back in. That's fine, but it's not what I was talking about since then.
Oops. Sorry. I did miss that. I guess what I'm saying is that is that in any given situation, there will likely be more evidence in existence to either prove or disprove A+B than A alone, though of course there will be exceptions (like with your scenario).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The evidence against his "retreatness" can (and should IMO) apply to both laws, "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat." Because he did neither, he initiated. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of the lawmaker himself. If the law is being interpreted in practice in conflict with the philosophy of the lawmaker, then clearly that is a failure of the judicial system, whose mandate is to interpret the laws. The law itself, as written, does not allow "stand your ground" to cover people initiating a conflict, so wherever that's coming from is either in the executive or judicial sector, and it's the job of the judiciary to put a stop to it.
One can presume this lawmaker doesn't know any more about the situation than we do, which, despite what some would have you think, is completely up in the air at the moment.

I'm not sure how he can make an unequivocal statement like that based on partial information, unless his intent is something other than being truthful.

I'll leave reasons why a politician may decide to lie as an exercise for the reader.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
My B. MIssed it.

I don't understand how bringing up fringe websites is going to help at all, or adds anything to the discussion. You're stereotyping and assuming that anyone that disagrees with you must be from the other side of the political isle than you. Several conservatives on here are vehemently advocating Zimmerman's arrest.

The irony of that is you spread the very hate and prejudice you're claiming to decry, just with a different set of stereotypes.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One can presume this lawmaker doesn't know any more about the situation than we do, which, despite what some would have you think, is completely up in the air at the moment.

I'm not sure how he can make an unequivocal statement like that based on partial information, unless his intent is something other than being truthful.
I think it's the same way so many of us make such statements here, including you when you said "Unless you think Zimmerman walking is the correct decision, this is a bad example." It comes with an implicit preface of "based on what we know so far." Obviously new facts could come to light, even after a jury verdict, but we can't forbid ourselves to ever take a stand on anything for fear of new evidence later changing our minds.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think it's the same way so many of us make such statements here, including you when you said "Unless you think Zimmerman walking is the correct decision, this is a bad example." It comes with an implicit preface of "based on what we know so far." Obviously new facts could come to light, even after a jury verdict, but we can't forbid ourselves to ever take a stand on anything for fear of new evidence later changing our minds.
Unless there's something I'm missing, the author of the bill's argument is based on interpretation of events which are currently in dispute (what happened between Zimmerman and Martin).

OTOH, my claim is based on interpetation of events which are not in dispute (whether Zimmerman was charged).

Again, unless I'm missing something, my thesis is based on a factual premise, while the premise of the author's thesis is conjecture.

I'm undoubtedly biased, but it strikes me that my argument has more validity purely by default.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Unless there's something I'm missing, the author of the bill's argument is based on interpretation of events which are currently in dispute (what happened between Zimmerman and Martin).

OTOH, my claim is based on interpetation of events which are not in dispute (whether Zimmerman was charged).

Again, unless I'm missing something, my thesis is based on a factual premise, while the premise of the author's thesis is conjecture.

I'm undoubtedly biased, but it strikes me that my argument has more validity purely by default.
The bill's author and I both agree that based on the evidence (the 911 transcript), Zimmerman was doing more than "standing his ground." The 911 transcript is not in dispute. The question of whether the defense can muster a cover story that meets the burden of self defense while plausibly accounting for both the 911 transcript and the timing of the victim's phone call, that is in dispute. That case has about the same chance as any "duty to retreat" argument of self-defense, in that the only thing standing in their way is their skill at "making shit up" that's believable.

Let me ask it another way... if it was "duty to retreat" then all he has to do is make up a story in which he was unable to retreat. He already says that he had abandoned his fruitless pursuit and was simply walking back to his car when he was jumped from behind unexpectedly. He already says that he was pinned down, head bashed against the ground. He already says that he fired during this wrestling match. To be honest, I don't think his story even has to change at all in order to accommodate "duty to retreat." In what way would a "duty to retreat" require a change in this tale?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post

The irony of that is you spread the very hate and prejudice you're claiming to decry, just with a different set of stereotypes.
He does that very often. Makes him look like a racist unintentionally.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The bill's author and I both agree that based on the evidence (the 911 transcript), Zimmerman was doing more than "standing his ground." The 911 transcript is not in dispute.
It is by his family. You have people from this guy's camp doing interviews claiming that Mr. Zimmerman didn't follow the kid at all ... even though he admitted it on tape. These same people are also claiming the kid wasn't on the phone with his girlfriend despite the phone logs. Now I can understand that Mr. Zimmerman is their blood and they certainly aren't enthralled with the idea of him facing jail time. But to construct such and outlandish narrative that is so at odds with objective evidence in order to try to establish this kid's supposed culpability in his own death is quite odd to say the least.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Let me ask it another way... if it was "duty to retreat" then all he has to do is make up a story in which he was unable to retreat. He already says that he had abandoned his fruitless pursuit and was simply walking back to his car when he was jumped from behind unexpectedly. He already says that he was pinned down, head bashed against the ground. He already says that he fired during this wrestling match. To be honest, I don't think his story even has to change at all in order to accommodate "duty to retreat." In what way would a "duty to retreat" require a change in this tale?
It requires a change because you simply can't get allegedly punched in the nose from behind if you were actually "retreating". If Mr. Zimmerman got punched in the nose as he claims then he obviously stopped retreating and turned around to engage the kid in a verbal confrontation. Once that confrontation became physical he would at that point have a "duty to retreat" if that was still the law. Which would be kind of difficult since he chose to stand there jaw-jacking and engaging in a wrestling match instead of continuing to walk away.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 05:25 PM
 
I just listened to this a lot closer Trayvon Martin News [SHOCKING FULL] Murder Caught on Tape | Killed By George Zimmerman 911 Call #1 - YouTube

Key points

Was asked not to follow.

Zimmerman says HE RAN and by the tone and everything else he got away.

The dispatch asked if he would meet the officers. The during of the time you hear him out of the car and when hes asked not to follow to the end of the call sounds like he never went back to the car he kept looking. This is further supported by the fact he says can they call him so he can say where he is at. This does not sound like some one going back to the car but some one continuing on to search for the kid.
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 30, 2012, 05:31 PM
 
I held the speaker to my head and listen to this one over and over and its def not zimmermans voice but the voice of a black kid screaming

Trayvon Martin 911 Call [SHOCKING SCREAMS] Murder Caught on Tape | Killed By George Zimmerman #2 - YouTube
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 06:02 PM
 
^^^^

Well I don't know what Mr. Zimmerman's voice sounds like nor the kid's. But this is quite a reasonable conjecture since it's quite commonplace for a person to scream for their life when someone pulls a gun on them.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It is by his family. You have people from this guy's camp doing interviews claiming that Mr. Zimmerman didn't follow the kid at all ... even though he admitted it on tape. These same people are also claiming the kid wasn't on the phone with his girlfriend despite the phone logs. Now I can understand that Mr. Zimmerman is their blood and they certainly aren't enthralled with the idea of him facing jail time. But to construct such and outlandish narrative that is so at odds with objective evidence in order to try to establish this kid's supposed culpability in his own death is quite odd to say the least.
Non sequitur

It requires a change because you simply can't get allegedly punched in the nose from behind if you were actually "retreating".
As I already said in the same post you just quoted, all he has to do is tell a story in which retreat was made impossible. He doesn't have to retreat, he has to retreat IF ABLE. Duty presumes ability.

If Mr. Zimmerman got punched in the nose as he claims then he obviously stopped was prevented from retreating and was turned around to engage by the kid in a verbal confrontation physical restraint. Once that confrontation became physical he would at that point have a "duty to retreat" if that was still the law and if he was not being restrained. Which would be kind of difficult since he chose to stand there jaw-jacking and engaging in a wrestling match instead of continuing to walk away. was being held down and beaten against the ground every which way (including face to face)
T,FTFY. See how easy it is to make shit up to comply with both laws? The problem here is that there's no evidence to challenge the accused's story (dead men tell no tales), and repealing "stand your ground" would do absolutely nothing to change that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2012, 07:59 PM
 
Florida teen's body showed no sign of fight, funeral director says | Reuters

No injuries except for the gun shot wound, Wonder how much of that screaming was from the kid due to a gun being pointed at him
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
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 02:13 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