Author Topic: The Trial of George Zimmerman  (Read 66021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #300 on: July 15, 2013, 01:57:53 pm »
So I've got to ask, has there been any real violence as a result of this? I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old guys I know react as if the nation is understorm over this, from what I see... like three big protests and a number of smaller ones.

Offline Shane for Wax

  • Official Mosin Nagant Fanboy, Crazy, and Lord of Androgynes
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
  • Gender: Male
  • Twin to shy, lover of weapons, pagan, wolf-brother
    • Game Podunk
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #301 on: July 15, 2013, 02:03:33 pm »
So I've got to ask, has there been any real violence as a result of this? I'm seeing a bunch of conservative old guys I know react as if the nation is understorm over this, from what I see... like three big protests and a number of smaller ones.

If there has it hasn't made the news. Every bit of info I get about protests mentions no arrests and no violence.

&
"The human race. Greatest monsters of them all."
"Ke barjurir gar'ade, jagyc'ade kot'la a dalyc'ade kotla'shya."
Fucking Dalek twats I’m going to twat you over the head with my fucking TARDIS you fucking fucks!

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #302 on: July 15, 2013, 02:14:30 pm »
Only real thing I've heard is a couple of shop windows got busted in Oakland.

Ironbite-so....yeah.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #303 on: July 15, 2013, 03:50:29 pm »

So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

When does Stand your ground start to apply? Some reports claim that Zimmerman showed his gun and clearly intimidated and baited Martin to fight. If a stranger follows a teenager around, shows that he is armed and dares the teen to grab his gun I don't see how that does not qualify as a threat. In fact if punching a person counts as a lethal threat then doesn't an ACTUAL GUN count as a lethal threat?

There's no good reports on exactly what occurred during the initial face-to-face confrontation before the fight. All we have are the witness statements, and as far as I can tell none of them came from anyone who actually watched the whole thing from beginning to end. The most that we know for a fact is that the two of them got into a verbal argument and then a fight started. Martin was most likely the one to throw the first punch.

However, Martin couldn't have gotten Stand Your Ground simply from being intimidated by a guy that he thought was a criminal looking for an opportunity. Unless Zimmerman actually engaged in threatening behavior, Martin couldn't have done anything but ran, told him to leave (possibly on pain of death if he was armed), or called for help. Like I said, that "threatening behavior" could have been as little as showing that he had a gun.

Technically Martin was in the wrong for throwing the first punch, but generally police will be lenient in cases like this if they think that the person was legitimately scared. You're not SUPPOSED to kick the guy in the balls just for following you, but police typically won't bother to pursue any charges against you for that unless they've personally got it in for you. They understand intimidation just as well as civilians.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

wrightway

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #304 on: July 15, 2013, 03:57:17 pm »
Only real thing I've heard is a couple of shop windows got busted in Oakland.

Ironbite-so....yeah.

There was violence there.

...the cops shot the crowd with beanbag pellets.

Offline MadCatTLX

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #305 on: July 15, 2013, 04:21:51 pm »
Was the busted window from actual protesters or was it a couple jackasses taking the opportunity to bust some windows for shits and giggles and having a good chance of getting away with it? Generally windows don't get busted until a protest turns in to a full on riot.
History is full of maniacs, my friend, men and women of intelect, highly perceptive individuals, who's brilliant minds know neither restraint nor taboo. Such notions are the devils we must slay for the edification of pony-kind. Even if said edification means violating the rules of decency, society, and rightousness itself.
                                                                                                                                                             -Twilight Sparkle, MAGIC.mov

Offline Nightangel8212

  • The Wicked Witch of the Great White North
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #306 on: July 15, 2013, 05:02:23 pm »

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #307 on: July 15, 2013, 07:35:00 pm »
So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?

Ironbite-wow.

Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline erictheblue

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #308 on: July 15, 2013, 07:54:03 pm »
Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.

Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.
[Anonymous is] like... an internet Cthulu... you don't want to rouse them, but at the same time... woah think of the beautiful chaos! - SpaceProg

QueenofHearts

  • Guest
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #309 on: July 15, 2013, 08:13:13 pm »
Yes, a the law does not cover a person who has committed, or in the process of committing an illegal act.  So whom ever started the confrontation would not be covered by the law.  If the state could have proved Zimmerman grabbed Martin or even threatened him Zimmerman would be behind bars.  The unfortunate thing is that Martin was not around to testify.

Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

It's because the portion of the law that you're talking about wasn't explained to the jury. The defense successfully filed a motion to supress those portions of Florida law that wouldn't benefit Zimmerman.

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #310 on: July 15, 2013, 08:50:30 pm »
Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline TheUnknown

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #311 on: July 15, 2013, 08:51:04 pm »
I've heard bits of an interview with one of the jurors, and since I keep hearing about how there was a string in of burglaries committed by black people in Zimmerman's neighborhood at the time of the shooting, I'm curious as to whether or not the burglaries actually ceased after the shooting happened, considering that was Zimmerman's entire basis of following Martin in the first place.


Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #312 on: July 15, 2013, 08:56:52 pm »
Wrong. As I have said many times, it does not matter who threw the first punch. Martin COULD NOT HAVE USED DEADLY FORCE because HE DID NOT HAVE A DEADLY WEAPON. Even if Martin had thrown the first punch, Zimmerman escalated to deadly force, which negates any self-defense claim he had.

I'll be blunt. The jury screwed up. I don't know if it's because the State didn't explain the law well enough, or the jury only heard what they wanted to hear. Whatever the reason, they screwed up.

Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers that have been on NPR, local public radio, commercial radio, and the networks are wrong.

...or perhaps you are?

Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #313 on: July 15, 2013, 09:30:20 pm »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48qU4fxqSg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48qU4fxqSg</a>
Formerly known as Eva-Beatrice and Wykked Wytch.

Quote from: sandman
There are very few problems that cannot be solved with a good taint punching.

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: The Trial of George Zimmerman
« Reply #314 on: July 15, 2013, 09:32:51 pm »
Now that's an "appeal to authority/popularity" fallacy if I've ever seen one.

Eric has consistently provided evidence supporting what he says.  All you've done is... repeat yourself and then say that "Hey all of these people disagree with you so therefore you must be wrong"

Might want to try a little harder.

I posted the Florida statute which says that a fear for loss of life or great bodily harm is all that is required for the use of lethal force.  Don't know what else I can do.  Even the link QueenofHearts posted states, "1) A defendant is "justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself." This means that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin did not actually have to be necessary; Zimmerman simply had to have a reasonable belief that it was necessary. (This is typical of self-defense in other states.)"

In the end it does not matter if Martin could have used deadly force or not.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth