"Knock, knock," he said. "'Who's there?' 'George Zimmerman.' 'George Zimmerman, who?' 'All right, good, you are on the jury.'"
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.
Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.
I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.
Zimmerman wasn't defending himself in his house.Quote from: Fl. Statutes Title XLVI 782.02Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.
In plain English, in order to use SYG, you have to be preventing a felony in your home.
The key to that inanity is that the law "does not require retreat" being interpreted to also not exclude pursuit.I almost understand their logic, it's as if the law doesn't come into effect until the defendant felt threatened. So pursue, corner, "It's coming right for us!" and blammo, one prison time free corpse. The problem is... well the entire line of thought I ran through to get there.
SYG is also applicable to a bystander, not under threat of harm themselves, to go over and intervene with an altercation or what they believe to be a felony crime in progress.This isn't quite as bad, aside from the gun totting psychos it seems to get applied to. Most of the nastiest altercations I ever got into involved poking my nose where it didn't necessarily belong because it looked remarkably one sided. Then again, I was never the armed one. I'd never really considered the implication that someone could simply see something, assume what it was, shoot someone without direct confrontation and be considered legal under this law. That's pretty nuts, but the entire law is about not having to put yourself at extra risk when you feel threatened, so they certainly wouldn't want to add any thing requiring the threatened individual to analyse the situation.
I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?That bit of Zimmerman's behaviour has been mentioned often in arguments about the case and usually it is claimed that Zimmerman had no oblication to obey the person on the line since he/she wasn't a cop. Wether that is true or not I have no idea.
I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?That bit of Zimmerman's behaviour has been mentioned often in arguments about the case and usually it is claimed that Zimmerman had no oblication to obey the person on the line since he/she wasn't a cop. Wether that is true or not I have no idea.
Also, I'd like to know if the people supporting Zimmerman would be just as eagerly defending Martin if he had won the fight...
Yeah, if you call the police and they tell you to stop doing something, it's typically a pretty clear indication of what a cop would have told you even if the person saying it isn't one. Things such as 'Do not go chasing after someone with a gun' should fall into basic logic in most cases, and not require much offical training.
Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.
(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 if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Quote(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 if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That's the relevant section. And I'll agree it's being poorly written, poorly interpreted law, and I hope the court rejects it in this case. But it doesn't apply solely to someone's home.
.............
Ironbite-I need a picture of some dude facepalming made up of facepalms please.
Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.Quote(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 if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
That's the relevant section. And I'll agree it's being poorly written, poorly interpreted law, and I hope the court rejects it in this case. But it doesn't apply solely to someone's home.
This'll be the new OJ Simpson Trial.
It's been surprisingly quiet and empty outside the Sanford court house. That is ominous, in a way.
I think he had trace amounts of THC which in a black kid makes him a thug.
This'll be the new OJ Simpson Trial.
The new OJ was Casey Anthony. I'd say Jodi Arias was the next, but I paid no attention to that other than that some crazy ex-girlfriend stalked and killed her ex-boyfriend or something.
Also, I've not paid much attention to this so far and haven't read the whole thread, but I do remember seeing on TV earlier today that Nancy Grace or someone was taking Zimmerman's side it seemed, and was trying to make Trayvon out to be a violent thug.. Granted I only watched maybe a minute of it so I might be wrong.
I thought grace defended Travyon
A lot of people are still mad over the fact she was part of why Casey got off
Wasn't there a woman who committed suicide after being hounded by Grace?
Wasn't there a woman who committed suicide after being hounded by Grace?
I'm going to look that up, and it would not surprise me. Someone who already has psychological problems could easily be tipped over the edge by the thought of Grace very publicly crying for their blood on TV, and knowing their reputation is destroyed by that, too. Terrifying, and especially so when Grace gets it wrong, as I am sure she has, in re a person's actual guilt. "Blood Lust For Justice" is not about justice...it is about blood lust.
It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing. So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.
It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing. So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.
Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)
Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)
Yes we know this. This has been stated several times by Eric.
Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.
Yes we know this. This has been stated several times by Eric.
Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.
Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.
According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force). Again, I don't believe his story. I don't find him credible. But in his version of events, he was legally justified.
Zimmerman's already on thin ice for a self-defense claim because he essentially stalked an innocent person and acted aggressively toward him, meaning that it's extremely reasonable to suggest that Martin attacked out of fear of his own life. But even if it was twisted into a valid self-defense claim, Zimmerman escalated the fight by using deadly force against an unarmed combatant.
According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force).
Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.
In Florida you can use deadly force against an unarmed person if you feel your life is in danger so long as you where not engaged in a criminal act.
Quote from: Florida statute(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 if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The initial aggressor has no right to self defense. All this law says is "if someone is attacking you (or someone else), you can fight back." Also, if the initial aggressor does not use deadly force, you cannot fight back with deadly force.
For example, say I walk up and punch you. I'm the initial aggressor, so you can defend yourself. However, your defense must be in proportion to my initial aggression. You can hit me back, but you cannot pull out a gun and shoot me. If you do pull a gun, you lose all claim of self-defense. If I then turn around, pull a gun, and shoot you, I can claim self-defense, since you are the one who escalated to deadly force.
Does it become deadly force if you are bouncing my head off of a concrete curb?
If bouncing your head off the curb was deadly force in the eyes of the law, any street fight could justifiably end with one of the guys shooting the other.
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force
Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force
Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself
QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force
Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself
QUOTING MYSELF FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
It depends on exactly what was going on, since actual knowledge is kinda sketchy. What IS fact is that Zimmerman was essentially stalking Martin while the latter was walking home alone in the middle of the night and eventually confronted him face to face. Technically that's not enough to let you legally start swinging without the other guy actually making a move at you, but a lot of cops and judges wouldn't look too poorly on someone in that case; it's pretty legitimate fear.
What IS true is that Zimmerman had no right to murder Martin because his life was not in immediate danger. Someone knocking your head on concrete is a lethal attack much in the same way that kicking someone in the head is lethal.
That analogy doesn't quite work. If you kick certain people in the head you will kill them. And you generally can't tell if someone has an aneurysm in the works until after the fact.
Zimmerman being armed, and Martin having no weapons of any kind, should have made this all a moot point
Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
It's a public area they were in, so I'm going to guess no.Does it count for anything legally that there wouldn't have been one if Zimmerman hadn't followed the kid?Ironbite-also to ask the same question did Martin have the right to defend himself from moron here?
If Zimmerman started the altercation, yes.
No, you can't. Self-defense claims require use of equal force. I am going to repeat what I said two pages ago...
Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force
Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself
Not in Florida. As mellenORL has stated defendants have won over and over when using deadly force against unarmed opponents. All that is required for you to be able to use deadly force is for you to reasonably fear for your life. Your interpretation is simply wrong.
Please attend law school in Florida, specialize in criminal law, and work in a prosecutor's office for a year. Then we will discuss whether I know Florida criminal law.
Please also note that juries can and do interpret the law as they wish. The judge reads jury instructions to the jury before deliberations begin. Those instructions lay out in plain language what the statutes mean and how they have been interpreted by courts for decades. If a jury chooses not to follow the legal interpretation of the law and instead reads the law the way they want to, there is nothing the state can do about it after the fact.
Was he engaged in a lawful activity?
Is there anywhere good to keep up to date on this? A lot of conflicting information floating around.
The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails."
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.
So apparently this happened (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291).Askold cannot open the link! Interrupted by a meditating guru!
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.
So Zimmerman can claim self defense? It seems like before you were saying he can't
So apparently this happened (http://deadspin.com/george-zimmerman-trial-interrupted-by-trolls-who-use-sk-658025291).Let's hope the defense doesn't follow up their knock-knock joke with a Call Me Maybe joke.
Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.
So Zimmerman can claim self defense? It seems like before you were saying he can't
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.
It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.Please reread what you quoted, especially the part about "fear of death or great bodily harm." That is what I have been saying.
So Zimmerman can claim self defense? It seems like before you were saying he can't
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.
A theory: Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon. Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.
A theory: Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon. Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.
Ahh, that, hopefully, is better. I assumed it was the direct quote because, well, quotation marks. Hopefully, this changes things. Having lived in Florida for most of my life (NY now), I've seen dumber. Like the local stations being hijacked for the Casey Anthony trial. They doing that again for this?A theory: Martin's hands could have been thought of as a deadly weapon. Skilled martial artists and CQC experts need to do so, and Zimmerman could have made that (false) assumption.It's worse than that. A "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" can be claimed as soon as Martin touched him. Any fight contains a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Therefore, anyone can argue it in any violent confrontation, because yes, there is a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury". Remember, bodily injury is a vague term. Is bodily injury pissing blood? Coma? Broken bones? Bruised bones? A scrape? While chances are that last one wouldn't work, the rest are all bodily injuries.
Hands, regardless of whose they are, are never considered deadly weapons.
PostHuman, the phrase is "serious bodily injury." Legally, that phrase means pretty much "organ failure" or "injury likely to lead to death."
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.
No, I am repeating that he cannot claim self-defense because he had no "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury." As you pointed out, that is a requirement for self-defense. Zimmerman could not have that fear because Martin was not armed with a deadly weapon.
So you can't beat a person to death with your bare hands?
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_81)
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104 (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_104)
The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle,
As I have said many times, hands are - legally - NOT a deadly weapon.
Read closer. That was a first-degree murder charge that was dismissed. First-degree murder has statutory requirements that do not appear to be met in that story.
The "Stand Your Ground" law specifically includes "occupied vehicle" as a location that can be considered.
If you read the story, the victim did force his way into the vehicle.
Okay, does not mean the person attacking you needs a deadly weapon for you to reasonably fear for your life?
Unless there's an extreme difference in size, strength, and/or capability (along the lines of a small, elderly woman being attacked by a football player), it's extremely difficult to justify that the attacker is capable of murdering you with their bare hands.
Otherwise, I could legally shoot any drunk at Burger King who tries to punch me.
Unless there's an extreme difference in size, strength, and/or capability (along the lines of a small, elderly woman being attacked by a football player), it's extremely difficult to justify that the attacker is capable of murdering you with their bare hands.
Otherwise, I could legally shoot any drunk at Burger King who tries to punch me.
That is the whole problem with the Florida law. This plus the fact that Florida unlike most places makes the prosecution prove that the act was not self defense.
All it takes is knocking someone out. After that it would not be hard to kill someone with your bare hands. Zimmerman has claimed Martin was on top of him punching him and causing the back of his head to hit the concrete. I don't think it is a stretch to think someone in that situation would fear for their life. In Florida that is all you need.
Except Zimmerman's wounds aren't consistent with that, and the jury should be paying attention to that.
Zimmerman is a bald-faced liar, and I'm already pissed about the amount of people who are siding with Zimmerman on this issue.
Oh, not here, no one here is siding with Zimmerman. I'm talking about idiots in comments.
Current evidence actually indicates that this is NOT what happened at all: the medical examiner stated that it's extremely plausible that his injuries came from a single punch that caused his head to hit the curb.
I'm not exactly willing to trust Zimmerman. He's the antagonist in this situation (everything occurred because he stalked and aggressively approached someone innocent) and has been quoted as fearing black youths like Martin. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of him lying about the ensuing fight to make himself look like the victim, rather than an aggressive wannabe cop who got in over his head.
Edit: Magus literally made my exact post.
OH NO! A BOY FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE AGAINST AN UNKNOWN ASSAILANT WHO WAS STALKING HIM FROM A 7-11 TO HIS HOUSE WITH ONLY HIS LITTLE BROTHER THERE! WHO'S ONLY CRIME WAS BEING BLACK, WEARING A HOODIE, AND GETTING SOME SNACKS! WELL LET'S LET ZIMMERMAN OFF BECAUSE CLEARLY HE'S IN RIGHT RIGHT HERE!
Ironbite-you sound exactly like that.
Same evidence, I'm fully convinced of his guilt.
Ironbite-what reason could you have that Martin was up to no good anyways?
That picture of his injuries IS consistent with a single blow to the face.
Same evidence, I'm fully convinced of his guilt.
Ironbite-what reason could you have that Martin was up to no good anyways?
There had been break-in in that community in the recent past.
Thing is Zimmerman was not breaking any laws approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing. So it comes down to who started the fight. The single eye witness did not see the start of the fight. The young women on the phone with Martin on the type has not way of knowing who started the fight. So you are left with Zimmerman's story. Yes, he may have started it. I think he probably did, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman had no more reason in fact to follow Martin than any other teen living there, regardless of the recent burglaries, which are also done by white and Hispanic criminals.
I'm not sure of that. I was pretty sure it was illegal to follow someone without their consent without being a law enforcement officer.Zimmerman had no more reason in fact to follow Martin than any other teen living there, regardless of the recent burglaries, which are also done by white and Hispanic criminals.
I believe in the police call Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspicious, and did not identify him as black. Regardless of his reasoning following Martin was not illegal.
Oh no a bloody nose totally indicative of someone trying to kill him instead of punching him once.
That picture entirely supports the medical examiner's testimony. Unless you have evidence of more attacks as can be seen in that picture, then the medical examiner is currently the most reliable testimony, since the evidence actually supports it.
Sorry, nickerson, but I think you're stretching a little too hard to try to play Devil's Advocate.
Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing: There is one incident of Stand Your Ground that actually should've applied. A black woman was being attacked by a bunch of men. She shot her gun a few times as a warning shot. She didn't even kill anybody. She was convicted for 20 years. So if Zimmerman gets acquitted, then I'm giving up all hope for Florida.
Additionally: Unlike in Phoenix Wright, Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. In fact, it's the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in court. It was dark. It's hard to see who is who in that situation. And, guess what? MEMORY IS FALLIBLE. Especially during intense situations. And it's also easily tainted by suggestion.
Oh no a bloody nose totally indicative of someone trying to kill him instead of punching him once.
That picture entirely supports the medical examiner's testimony. Unless you have evidence of more attacks as can be seen in that picture, then the medical examiner is currently the most reliable testimony, since the evidence actually supports it.
Sorry, nickerson, but I think you're stretching a little too hard to try to play Devil's Advocate.
Furthermore, I would like to point out one thing: There is one incident of Stand Your Ground that actually should've applied. A black woman was being attacked by a bunch of men. She shot her gun a few times as a warning shot. She didn't even kill anybody. She was convicted for 20 years. So if Zimmerman gets acquitted, then I'm giving up all hope for Florida.
Additionally: Unlike in Phoenix Wright, Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. In fact, it's the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in court. It was dark. It's hard to see who is who in that situation. And, guess what? MEMORY IS FALLIBLE. Especially during intense situations. And it's also easily tainted by suggestion.
The cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head, the detective testifying Zimmerman's back was wet from being on the grass both support the eye witness testimony.
You're not even playing Devil's Advocate here. Now you're just ignoring people to avoid admitting that you might be wrong.
I'm not sure of that. I was pretty sure it was illegal to follow someone without their consent without being a law enforcement officer.
Stalking.
You're not even playing Devil's Advocate here. Now you're just ignoring people to avoid admitting that you might be wrong.
It also supports what the witness saw. His testimony may not be a reliable as the medical examiner but it is going to depend on what the jury puts more stock in.
Stalking.
From Florida Statute:
"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."
For it to be stalking it has to be repeat.
Stalking.
From Florida Statute:
"(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."
For it to be stalking it has to be repeat.
I'm not seeing the word repeat there nickerson.
Ironbite-are you Zimmerman's lawyer or something?
It only supports what the witness claimed to have seen in the most barest sense. The actual testimony of the medical examiner indicates that either Zimmerman was lying or Martin wasn't even bitch slapping him.
It only supports what the witness claimed to have seen in the most barest sense. The actual testimony of the medical examiner indicates that either Zimmerman was lying or Martin wasn't even bitch slapping him.
Just because Martin was throwing punches does not mean they were connecting. You would expect someone with some training knowing how to protect themselves. In fact had Martin been landing clean blows Zimmerman most likely would have been to dazed to reach for his gun.
I'm...not sure how I didn't see that word. Like at all. Just completely glazed over it.
Ironbite-still.....Zimmerman might still go down if his lawyer spends the whole time telling knock-knock jokes.
You're still acting under the belief that Martin was repeatedly punching Zimmerman. You're taking a notoriously unreliable eyewitness statement as fact.
As has already been stated, witness testimonies are highly unreliable. Just because the testimony hasn't changed doesn't mean that it's any more reliable. Once someone becomes convinced of something, it's easy to keep them convinced of something.
So, a professional who has seen these kinds of wounds before has less clout than a random witness who has no evidence to actually corroborate his story. That seems entirely messed up to me.
As has already been stated, witness testimonies are highly unreliable. Just because the testimony hasn't changed doesn't mean that it's any more reliable. Once someone becomes convinced of something, it's easy to keep them convinced of something.
So, a professional who has seen these kinds of wounds before has less clout than a random witness who has no evidence to actually corroborate his story. That seems entirely messed up to me.
Watch some MMA. I've seen guys get hit one good time and look much worse than Zimmerman. I've also seen guys take punches to the face for the better part of 25 minutes and not even look like they were in a fight.
...and to mention it again just because Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing punches does not mean he was connecting.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/zimmerman-lawyer-urges-trayvons-mom-admit-he
Zimmerman's lawyer tried to make Martin's mother say that her son caused his own death... He tried to weasel her into saying that her son's death was his own fault...
I do not like that lawyer.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/zimmerman-lawyer-urges-trayvons-mom-admit-he
Zimmerman's lawyer tried to make Martin's mother say that her son caused his own death... He tried to weasel her into saying that her son's death was his own fault...
I do not like that lawyer.
That lawyer can go to hell and should be sued for emotional anguish.
And to mention it yet again, witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence. Not to mention, witnesses can lie, even when under oath.
I mean the media has lied about Trayvon being a "thug" and a "wannabe gangster", despite full evidence to the contrary.
And to mention it yet again, witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence. Not to mention, witnesses can lie, even when under oath.
I mean the media has lied about Trayvon being a "thug" and a "wannabe gangster", despite full evidence to the contrary.
Eye witness testimony can be unreliable and they can lie. That does not mean this witness did. It is all going to come down what the jury puts more stock in.
Maybe the prosecution is hoping if the defense is an asshole that she looks better .That is a good point. If you shut down an asshole early, he looks like a minor asshole. If you let him keep going, he exposes him for the Todd Akin he is.
Maybe the prosecution is hoping if the defense is an asshole that she looks better .That is a good point. If you shut down an asshole early, he looks like a minor asshole. If you let him keep going, he exposes him for the Todd Akin he is.
So where's the evidence supporting the eye witness testimony that doesn't lend more support to the medical examiner's testimony?
You are still thinking that the eye witness testimony refutes in some way what the medical examiner said. It doesn't.
Ironbite-HOW DOES IT NOT REFUTE IT!?
The prosecution will focus on that also wasn't zimmerman taller. certainly weighs more and often that is the more deciding factor
Yup, and as far as who was yelling and screaming? It has to be both of them. Neither man knew the other, both men were initially suspicious of the other, and both men were desperate and terrified of the other as they struggled for that gun.Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Like I said way back in the beginning of either this thread or the other Zimmerman thread...why the fuck can't people just nod at each other, just talk, just say hi, just acknowledge each other first before jumping to scary/angry conclusions? Making neutral to friendly eye contact with a stranger - even an actual criminal - can neutralize potential danger, and nearly all of the time, result in zero violence.
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Yeah, someone who feels the need to conceal carry a pistol to go grocery shopping has issues. Sanford at large has a a fairly big crime problem, yes, but in Zimmerman's neighborhood and that Walmart he was headed to, it's not risky, any more than my own neighborhood, or the nearby Walmart. If Zimmerman was my neighbor, I bet he would conceal carry, and wear a Kevlar vest....because lots of black people and Hispanic people live nearby, and lots of black people and ethnic Mexican * people shop at my Walmart....oooooo! Scary! ::)
BTW, most of my immediate neighbors are elderly, white, and frail. They aren't afraid to shop there. None carry a gun. Maybe pepper spray or a stun gun, if that.
*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html)
Yeah, you don't need a handgun for daily life in Central Florida. Hell, when I lived in Lake County, I was five minutes away from a chapter of the Kingsmen biker gang, and I never felt worried.Because Zimmerman is a common thug, a criminal. Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
Yeah, someone who feels the need to conceal carry a pistol to go grocery shopping has issues. Sanford at large has a a fairly big crime problem, yes, but in Zimmerman's neighborhood and that Walmart he was headed to, it's not risky, any more than my own neighborhood, or the nearby Walmart. If Zimmerman was my neighbor, I bet he would conceal carry, and wear a Kevlar vest....because lots of black people and Hispanic people live nearby, and lots of black people and ethnic Mexican * people shop at my Walmart....oooooo! Scary! ::)
BTW, most of my immediate neighbors are elderly, white, and frail. They aren't afraid to shop there. None carry a gun. Maybe pepper spray or a stun gun, if that.
*http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html)
"But Zimmerman can't be racist because he's Hispanic!"What's funny is, that really should shut down most of his defenders. I was pretty sure the racists hated Hispanics as much as they did every other minority, and am amazed they aren't seeing it as two thugs, instead of just switching the innocent to a thug and the thug to an innocent like they are currently doing.
So now the defense is going to move on to pointing out how Martin had pot in his system at the time of death.
In fact, if the jury has a brain it will hurt the defense.So now the defense is going to move on to pointing out how Martin had pot in his system at the time of death.
Which, of course, doesn't actually matter.
IDK, marijuana has strong tendancies to make you beat up wannabe cops...
Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.
Not that it makes all that much difference, being that weed is only violence-inducing if you consider tearing open a bag of Cheetos to be "violence", but was Martin even stoned during the confrontation, or was this merely residual THC from earlier use?Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.
I think you know why.
Not that it makes all that much difference, being that weed is only violence-inducing if you consider tearing open a bag of Cheetos to be "violence", but was Martin even stoned during the confrontation, or was this merely residual THC from earlier use?Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.
I think you know why.
Not to mention that one has to wonder why the police spent exhaustive amounts of effort drug testing Trayvon and so little effort checking out Zimmerman.
I think you know why.
Yep. Which is why I'm not "one".
I'm "Square Root of Nineteen"
They're obviously grasping at straws for their defense.
They're obviously grasping at straws for their defense.
Which the jury is kinda sorta buying.
Sady it's in Florida so the average juror knows about ppot only from Reefer Madness
Sady it's in Florida so the average juror knows about ppot only from Reefer Madness
I was referring to the elderly
Yeah, Florida has some ass-backwards people, but otherwise, it's more weird than anything. Over a decade of living there made that quite obvious.I was referring to the elderly
Again, I don't think you've ever been to Florida.
Hell, our former next door neighbor was a senior citizen who almost definitely made her money through drug dealing. "Former" because she died recently.
This is the same state where Casey Anthony can get a "not guilty". My faith in the jury isn't too high.
Normally, the only people I really wanna see get in trouble with the law are bad politicians and corporate dick wads. Nancy Grace on trial for a serious felony - utterly caught red handed - would be something I'd pay good money to see.
We're in Day 2 of deliberations. And I found out today that the jury is half women.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.We're in Day 2 of deliberations. And I found out today that the jury is half women.
The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.We're in Day 2 of deliberations. And I found out today that the jury is half women.
The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
That cannot be legal. I don't like Zimmerman, but I have a feeling that six mother do not a balanced jury make.We're in Day 2 of deliberations. And I found out today that the jury is half women.
The jury is all women. Since this isn't a DP case, only 6 jurors are required.
Just got back from visiting mom in the hospital (she's back in again) and go to cook something and then read about this verdict.Coincidentally:
I'm...at a lost.
And now, how much you want to bet that we may have a riot a la LA?
Poetic justice would be if someone followed Zimmerman in a car for a while one night, then got out and approached him in an aggressive manner, shouting vague threats like, "You've got a problem now!" And then when Zimmerman feels justifiably threatened and tries to fight, shoot him.
That child had every right to be where he was. That child had every right to do what he was doing, walking home. That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him, first in his car and then on foot. And did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man?
Fuck it I'm moving to Canada
Just this country is worthless.
See that's also what bothers me, he didn't even get manslaughter. Someone who accidentally runs over someone in a car and kills them would get manslaughter. This was no accident.
The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.
Yup, he said if Zimmerman had been black, the public and the police would have given him more slack.The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.
??? Seriously?
Yup, he said if Zimmerman had been black, the public and the police would have given him more slack.The defense attorneys are saying that race was a factor in the case, and that it worked AGAINST Zimmerman. They actually said that if the races were reversed, black Zimmerman wouldn't have even been charged.
??? Seriously?
See that's also what bothers me, he didn't even get manslaughter. Someone who accidentally runs over someone in a car and kills them would get manslaughter. This was no accident.
Exactly. Even if you take race out of the equation (not that I'm saying we should), you'd still have an adult who behaved irresponsibly by trying to play Neighbourhood Watch Superhero, resulting in a death.
Not surprising given the laws in Florida. The prosecution really had no way to prove beyond a doubt that it was not self defense.
Shit. Is anyone else afraid Florida is going to burn?
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/florida.gif)
Spain take florida back
One of Zimmerman's lawyers compared Martin's death with "kids who die of cancer all the time." Because, you know, kids who die of cancer die from completely preventable deaths perpetrated by fellow human beings oh wait.
I'd love to wake up tomorrow and hear that absolutely nothing happened. I'd also be ok waking up to the news that Detroit, DC, LA, Chicago, etc have burned to the ground and the streets are littered with the bodies of rioters.
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.
George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.
George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
We really do NOT want another Rodney King riots. Everyone suffers.Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.
George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
If this really sparks riots or even worse vigilantism it will make the situation worse for everyone. It will help the racists who claim that blacks are violent and unruly. It will validate the people who support vigilantism in the way Zimmerman was doing it.
And worst of all it will mean more blood on the streets. Riots from cases like this will spread and people forget the original purpose as they use this excuse to riot and steal and maybe even attack everyone they see as a threat.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)
Fun for the whole family!
I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.
Oh, don't you all worry. Zimmerman will get what is coming to him. With all the anger going down in Florida, there is no chance that he will live through it.NO! Vigilantism is bad and what he deserves is a sentence of jail time not some angry mob lynching him.
George Zimmerman will die a pathetic death. And that's good enough for me.
If this really sparks riots or even worse vigilantism it will make the situation worse for everyone. It will help the racists who claim that blacks are violent and unruly. It will validate the people who support vigilantism in the way Zimmerman was doing it.
And worst of all it will mean more blood on the streets. Riots from cases like this will spread and people forget the original purpose as they use this excuse to riot and steal and maybe even attack everyone they see as a threat.
(http://gifs.gifbin.com/florida.gif)Spain take florida back
Confiscate Disney World. They don't deserve to keep the "happiest place on earth".
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)
Fun for the whole family!
I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.
Also, why the fuck didn't the defense have to prove it was self defense? Almost every other state I know of requires you to prove it's self defense, but in this case it was somehow assumed. That's stupid.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/35877df1fedce03b8592f8c85dbfd51d/tumblr_mpwuw9LV9z1qzk3wxo1_500.png)
Fun for the whole family!
I could get BINGO from tumblr in the past two hours.
I could get fucking blackout in 30 seconds from just one of the multitude of Reddit threads on the matter.
One of Zimmerman's relatives has posted an IAmA thread on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i9k6e/iama_close_relative_of_george_zimmerman_i_was/
I just hope the shockingly large group of Reddit racists don't latch on to that thread.
One of Zimmerman's relatives has posted an IAmA thread on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1i9k6e/iama_close_relative_of_george_zimmerman_i_was/
"Edit: God damn it guys, stop pming and asking about whether George would rather get into a fight with 100 duck sized horses or a horse sized duck. I do not fucking know. Let's keep this about Rampart."
I must have done a good job in picking blogs to follow, 'cause I've only been seeing disgust with the verdict on my dash.Me too, even though most of the stuff is fandom shit so...I'm trying my best to keep quiet about on tumblr and Facebook(I had a few relatives actually defending Zimmerman) because I don't want to deal with the shit.
I really hope the jurors remain anonymous, because they were in a lose/lose situation here. As much as I don't like the verdict, I don't think the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the jurors did the right thing.On one hand, one part of me agrees. On the other hand, the vengeful dick part of me disagrees. I've been in vengeful dick mode for hours, though, so I mainly agree due to being rather low on anger.
I really hope the jurors remain anonymous, because they were in a lose/lose situation here. As much as I don't like the verdict, I don't think the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the jurors did the right thing.
Funny.
This has taught me that expecting the worst can still leave you disappointed when it actually happens.
There is no preparing for this kinda shit it seems.
Well, nice to know that when a black woman fires a gun into the air to scare someone, it earns her 20 years in prison, but outright killing a black teenager armed with skittles and a can of iced tea doesn't just let you go scot free, but you get hailed as a hero by a whole bunch of sheeple.
Of course, the prosecution might've actually had a case if the police had actually done their job and investigated the crime scene instead of drug testing Trayvon, patching Zimmerman's wounds, and sending him home.
Also, why the fuck didn't the defense have to prove it was self defense? Almost every other state I know of requires you to prove it's self defense, but in this case it was somehow assumed. That's stupid.
One of Zimmerman's lawyers compared Martin's death with "kids who die of cancer all the time." Because, you know, kids who die of cancer die from completely preventable deaths perpetrated by fellow human beings oh wait.
When the state special prosecutor's office filed for second degree murder, it was a politically motivated, public opinion assuaging move.
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.
I must have done a good job in picking blogs to follow, 'cause I've only been seeing disgust with the verdict on my dash.Me too, even though most of the stuff is fandom shit so...I'm trying my best to keep quiet about on tumblr and Facebook(I had a few relatives actually defending Zimmerman) because I don't want to deal with the shit.
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.
Thing is the defense did a good job of raising doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin. Remember Zimmerman said he was looking for a street sign. With that in doubt so to was the manslaughter conviction.
A manslaughter conviction would have been much easier. Zimmerman pretty obviously acted recklessly: he aggressively followed a teenager who was alone at night without identifying himself. While Martin was pretty dumb to confront and punch him over that, he was very justifiably intimidated by Zimmerman. While Martin stated the actual fight, Zimmerman was the one whose own stupid intimidation and ignoring of the police got him in trouble in the first place.
Thing is the defense did a good job of raising doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin. Remember Zimmerman said he was looking for a street sign. With that in doubt so to was the manslaughter conviction.
Looking for a street sign in his own neighbourhood, eh? Where he served as neighbourhood watch...
What? No they didn't. The call he made to Sanford police completely indicates that he was following Martin. Allow me to provide a direct quote:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Looking for a street sign in his own neighbourhood, eh? Where he served as neighbourhood watch...
Some times being a dumbass is a defense. While it was reported Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch there was no evidence to that fact, nor evidence that Zimmerman patrolled the housing complex.
What was the next part to that call? The dispatched told him he did not need to do that and Zimmerman responded okay. He than indicated he was looking for the street name and to have the officer call him when he arrived in the area.
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator according to Wendy Dorival, who was the program's organizer for the Sanford PD.
Seriously, are you actually reading anything? It's like you don't even bother Googling this case.
Red herring. You claimed that there was no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin. I provided a direct quote from Zimmerman himself that states that he was. You were wrong, plain and simple.
He couldn't leave it alone. He just couldn't stop from being a dick to the African American community one last time. First he claimed he shot Trayvon because God wanted him to or something, and now he wants them to apologize to him.
There's being an aggrandizing, self indulgent douche, and then there's being a suicidally stupid moron. He just signed his own death warrant; thanks Zimmerman. I look forward to the details, and I do hope its gruesome.
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.Well, there's two answers.
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.
Not for what Zimmerman did. While Zimmerman acted as the initial aggressor and intimidated Martin into believing that he was a street tough looking for a victim (don't follow people when they're alone at night, you twat), Martin was the one to throw the first blow. It wasn't a very smart move, though he was definitely legitimately scared for his life,
Self-defence then.
Almost immediately Dinalynn Andrews Potter leapt on to the stage – "like an acrobat", according to Chambers' wife. "She had a crazed look in her eye," a witness told the Times. "I saw the devil there." She shoved the singer before anyone else could react; Chambers, 73, was eventually taken to hospital, receiving treatment for "bruised rib muscle and nerve damage". Andrews Potter, 43, was arrested and charged with suspicion of battery, while Chambers "will be up and running soon", according to his son.
What if Martin had been armed? Would he not have been legally justified in shooting Zimmerman.
Not for what Zimmerman did. While Zimmerman acted as the initial aggressor and intimidated Martin into believing that he was a street tough looking for a victim (don't follow people when they're alone at night, you twat), Martin was the one to throw the first blow. It wasn't a very smart move, though he was definitely legitimately scared for his life, but Martin was the one who started it.
If Martin wanted justification for killing Zimmerman instead, Zimmerman would have had to have escalated the fight to the point where a firearm would be deemed necessary. This could be as little as exposing his own gun as a means to intimidate Martin, or as much as actually drawing and firing on him.
Had I been Martin, I likely would have been carrying some kind of weapon on me if I was alone at night. If I caught Zimmerman following me, I would have been shouting at him to keep his distance and informing him that I was armed and willing to protect myself.
So by throwing the first punch, Martin gave up his right to Stand his Ground?
Ironbite-wow.
Made a Facebook post saying "innocent! Start throwing punches in a concealed carry state and expect to get shot." to which I got replies along the line of "oh, you mean racist white guys get to kill innocent black guys just for the hell of it."
but I'm the racist evidently. Sadly it looks like it, because I have not a single black friend left on facebook. Which hurts, because one of my best friends was one of them.
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?
And I am a bit suprised but the racists aren't the most infuriating pro-Zimmerman group I've seen. I mean the people who blame the black kid no matter what happened and are glad that there is one black person less are always horrible cunts, but the pro-gun people defending Zimmerman are worse in a way.
I mean, people who at least claim not to be racists are defending this as a good example of self defense. They are defending a person who stalked a teen and (according to most evidence) started the confrontation, the person who was specifically looking for trouble and an opportunity to attack Martin.
Seriously, Ironbite was joking/sarcastic with his comment but I have really read comments that throwing that punch justified killing Martin.
In fact:QuoteMade a Facebook post saying "innocent! Start throwing punches in a concealed carry state and expect to get shot." to which I got replies along the line of "oh, you mean racist white guys get to kill innocent black guys just for the hell of it."
but I'm the racist evidently. Sadly it looks like it, because I have not a single black friend left on facebook. Which hurts, because one of my best friends was one of them.
Can't seem to find the one identical to Ironbite's post though.
And I'm not sure if I want to dig further to find it...
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.
Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.
At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.
Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.
At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.
He probably didn't have a phone on him. I can't recall what all he had on him at the time, tho, so I might be wrong. But this also comes into account: fear. You're afraid of the big dude following you. You think maybe pulling out a phone would 'spook' the guy following you and make him attack you sooner. So you don't.
Admittedly, I've always imagined secretly dialing 911 in my pocket but my phone doesn't allow that because touchscreen.
In other news, people have staged a mass sit-in in NYC and other places.
If I had been Martin I would have called 911 when I saw someone tailing me.
Maybe he didn't believe the cops would make it in time or come at all, but that's what I would have done.
At least it would have made the prosecution's work easier, if there had been recording of Martin clearly being in fear of his life. It should have shut up the pro-Zimmerman group about Marting being a thug who attacked Zimmerman.
He probably didn't have a phone on him. I can't recall what all he had on him at the time, tho, so I might be wrong. But this also comes into account: fear. You're afraid of the big dude following you. You think maybe pulling out a phone would 'spook' the guy following you and make him attack you sooner. So you don't.
Admittedly, I've always imagined secretly dialing 911 in my pocket but my phone doesn't allow that because touchscreen.
In other news, people have staged a mass sit-in in NYC and other places.
He had a cell phone. He was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time (the one who didn't look so good when questioned). Also, she alleges that Trayvon's phone was slapped out of his hand by Zimmerman after Trayvon asked Zimmerman who he was.
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.
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?
Only real thing I've heard is a couple of shop windows got busted in Oakland.
Ironbite-so....yeah.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k48qU4fxqSg
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.
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
Holy, shit, there are no words. How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
Holy, shit, there are no words. How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?
And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
Holy, shit, there are no words. How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?
And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...
Welp, looks Like Zimmerman, in addition to being a scumbag murder and woman-beater, is also a child-molestor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html
Holy, shit, there are no words. How in the hell has this fucker kept getting away with these things?
And his legal team says they'll defend him against this too...
Well it's their job to defend people in court. Even the one's that are guilty.
I'm slightly sceptical about these accusations that keep popping up. I mean on one hand the timing is what it is while on the other hand it does make sense that she's been afraid of him untill now so she didn't come out with this before...
I'd like to say the court can handle this, that they are better equipped and have better access to facts than a random person with an internet connection but after the last time Zimmerman was in court I'm not sure if I trust the US justice system's judgement.
"Trayvon should’ve walked away."
Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished. (http://www.complex.com/music/2013/07/stevie-wonder-boycott-florida-until-stand-your-ground-law-is-abolished)
Am I the only one bothered by one of the jurors being a racist and saying things such as:
“I think George was pretty consistent..told the truth basically. It happened, “pretty much the way George said."
“I have no doubt George feared for his life, in the situation he was in at the time."
“Zimmerman’s heart was in the right place … just went terribly wrong."
"Trayvon should’ve walked away."
"I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him (George Zimmerman)."
"Rachel Jeantel was not credible…I felt bad for her. A lot of the time, she was using phrases I’ve never heard before."
“I think all of us (the jury) didn’t think race played a role."
"I didn’t understand why the case had gotten so big because I didn’t see this case as racial."
"And all the people that want him guilty, aren’t going to have any closure. I just never saw it as a racial thing."
“George Zimmerman was just frustrated. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. Too many things were happening in his neighborhood. I think he’s changed now."
“I think he has every right to carry a gun."
George Zimmerman is going to be more responsible with a gun than anyone else on the planet right now.
Initial jury vote was: 3 for not guilty, 1 for second degree murder, 2 for manslaughter
"The laws regarding manslaughter, self-defense, etc. were very confusing to comprehend."
*sobs* “This was an emotional trial." *Anderson Cooper asks if she felt sad for Trayvon Martin*……………….Um yes and I feel sorry for George too.
It’s just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man’s life afterwards."
Source: Anderson Cooper interview
Is this the same one who said that if the previous burglaries had been committed by whites or Mexicans, then she was confident Zimmerman would have reacted the exact same way? I think my grandma said she's planning to write a book about this.
Okay guys, I have tried sleeping for four and a half hours, and I'm really out of it. Just wanted to clarify that, holy shit, I am not George, you guys. As for the whole "Yeah, he's trying to paint his relative like an angel", fuck you. Seriously, you have no idea what this case has done to my family, and to see it EVERYWHERE without being able to say something is fucking brutal. I hear so much bullshit about George it's not even funny. I was pretty much homeless for six months due to this bullshit, living off the kindness of friends. I am here to defend George and clear things up. Is George an angel? No. As a matter of a fact, he stole a computer monitor from me after this whole thing happened. I do not even LIKE George anymore. But, I know all of that was because of what he was going through. I will try to answer some questions but I'm on 48 hours of no sleep here. Also, I could not do an AMA before the trial ended. I don't want to fuck anything up, but I have been itching to finally publicly be able to defend someone I know. There are still a lot of misconceptions out there floating around, and I want to try to fix that.
Sample of my inbox, I'll just do one.
I hope God whoever God is, never relieve your son of this horrendous crime against a young child and the faith of millions of people. May it forever remain in his paranoid conscience and may his own conscience never forgive him and may it kill him dead one day!
Well, I'm not George's mother, but you sound like a good Christian with Christian values...I'm seeing a LOT of stuff like this. And frankly, it is sad. Have you all motherfuckers never seen Se7en? Don't be the last sin.
Also, I am not trying to paint us as the only victims...obviously the loss of Trayvon was a terrible thing. But just refer to the above. I DO NOT speak for George. I'm just shedding light on MY FAMILIES side of the situation. I'm not a PR guy. The "George's past" argument is a joke as well, you all talk about George's past, what of Trayvon's? What of this "child's" past of violence and trying to purchase guns and doing drugs? I don't bring that up to try to smear his grave, just that seriously, why is his past not relevant?
The "George's past" argument is a joke as well, you all talk about George's past, what of Trayvon's? What of this "child's" past of violence and trying to purchase guns and doing drugs? I don't bring that up to try to smear his grave, just that seriously, why is his past not relevant?
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.
I have to disagree with you here, Nickerson's argument is not fallacious. If a large number of experts agree to something in their field of expertise, that is decent evidence in favour of it.
Yes, Eric the jury along with the Judge, the Prosecution and all the other lawyers
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence.
ZIMMERMAN/TRAYVON MARTIN; THE CASE IS OVER AND A VERDICT HAS BEEN GIVEN. NOW;
NO MATTER WHAT YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION MAY BE ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE,
1. NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED IN ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR DESTRUCTION AS A RESULT OF THIS.
2. POLITICISING THIS EVENT (AS THE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA HAVE BOTH DONE) IS IRRESPONSIBLE, ABHORRENT, AND SELFISH. THERE’S ALREADY FAR TOO MUCH RACIAL TENSION AND BASELESS HATRED IN THIS WORLD, AND THOSE ON EITHER SIDE WHO TRY TO USE THIS AS A MEANS OF FURTHERING THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS, FEAR/HATE MONGERING, OR FURTHERING THEIR OWN RISE TO FAME OR POWER, SHOULD BE CALLED OUT AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.
3. THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF EXAMPLES OF BOTH JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE ALL OVER THE WORLD, EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES, THIS IS NOT, NOR SHOULD IT BE MADE TO BE A BLACK OR WHITE OR HISPANIC ISSUE.
SO ALL OF YOU OUT THERE, GET OFF OF YOUR SOAPBOXES, CUT THE CRAP, MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES, AND LETS FOCUS ON ALL OF THE OTHER ATROCITIES THAT OCCUR ALL OVER THE GLOBE (LIKE THE SCHOOL MASSACRE IN NIGERIA WHICH THE MEDIA HAS BASICALLY GLOSSED OVER IN FAVOR OF THE ZIMMERMAN FRENZY). THERE IS NO GREATER PIMP THAN THE MEDIA. THEY ARE EXPERTS IN WHORING SOMETHING OUT UNTIL IT IS BROKEN, DRIED UP, AND NO LONGER OF USE TO THEM. DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE MANIPULATED BY THIS SLIGHT OF HAND BULLS–T.
OK … I’M DONE.
Because he used capslock, it is now impossible to not read that as the lyrics to a Disturbed song.I've only seen him turn off capslock once. During that, he crowned himself "Ambassador of Rock at Spotify"
There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence.
That's basically the definition of heuristic: "something useful for solving a problem or coming to understanding other than evidence." Racist stereotypes are heuristics. Most logical fallacies are heuristics.
[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.
I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.
It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.
[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.
Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:
What I've learned from all of this:
When white people demonstrate, it's a "protest". When black people demonstrate, it's a "riot".
What I asked for was somewhere where the Judge said Zimmerman had a self-defense claim. What you gave me is the stock Jury Instruction. But even if those were the judge's own words (and not a stock reading), it never says Zimmerman had the self-defense claim. All it does is tell the jury that if they believe Zimmerman was in mortal danger, then they could find him not guilty based on self-defense.
Zimmerman did not use a Stand Your Ground defense, yet it seems the jurors used their interpretation of that law in their deliberations.
Was Trayvon at 7-11 Buying Skittles and Fruit Juice to Make a Drug?
Even if he was, that's not illegal.And even if it was illegal it would not be a reason to kill him.
Things like this are why I say the following:
Zimmerman may have been sitting in the defense, but it was Trayvon that was on trial, and the verdict was "Guilty for the purposes of being the scapegoat"
The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Interesting suggestion about arming all black people and the response.
Interesting suggestion about arming all black people and the response.
Yes. I am already outraged that gun-advocates defend Zimmerman so strongly when he (at least in my impression) was the agressor, but this racism inherent in pro-gun/self-defence groups should be more on the news.
People argue against Moore's "KKK led to NRA" video but despite their outrage on accusations of racism NRA and pro-gun groups don't seem to want to defend black people, or even want them armed.
"But you see, they are just thugs..."
Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
So again, because Martin feared for his own life, as Zimmerman did in this case, because he's black he has no right to stand his ground.
Ironbite-as per Florida law.
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?
Because Martin was black.
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?
The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could. Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away.
So again, Martin did not have the right to stand his ground.
Ironbite-is that what you're saying?
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?
The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could. Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away.
So Zimmerman's defense argued against Stand your ground.
Got it.
Fucking being attacked. What about being followed by a suspicious looking guy in a truck?
Ironbite-did Martin in fact feared for his life?
Actually that is a good point. If Martin should have escaped from danger (rather than, shall we say "stand his ground") then why was it ok for Zimmerman to seek confrontation and shoot rather than escape when he got scared of the scary black man?
The law says you can stand your ground, however the defense's argument was that a reasonable person if in fear for his life would get to someplace safe if they could. Zimmerman did not fear for his life until he was on the ground with Martin on top of him, and thus could not just run away.
Except he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't chased Martin down. And if I understand it right, Martin had no obligation to retreat and was perfectly within his rights to defend himself. Regardless of who threw the first punch, if it was Martin, I still think Zimmerman should have been held responsible for putting Martin in a position where he thought he had to attack Zimmerman to protect himself. I doubt Martin went out that night looking for a fight, unlike Zimmerman.
Except he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't chased Martin down. And if I understand it right, Martin had no obligation to retreat and was perfectly within his rights to defend himself. Regardless of who threw the first punch, if it was Martin, I still think Zimmerman should have been held responsible for putting Martin in a position where he thought he had to attack Zimmerman to protect himself. I doubt Martin went out that night looking for a fight, unlike Zimmerman.
It is a doubled edged sword. Martin did have the right to stand his ground, but it is reasonable to think a person who feared for their live would go to safety if he had a chance. This was brought up in the case of the women who got 20 years for firing at her husband. The prosecution brought up the fact that she passed multiply ways to escape while on her way to get her gun.
The problem is that by its very nature, Stand Your Ground says that you do NOT have a duty to retreat before fighting back. As long as Martin could have reasonably feared for his life, he didn't have to run at all. Suggesting that he may have been in legitimate fear of his life from the guy following him in a truck when he was alone at night (who then got out of his truck to try and continue following him) means that Stand Your Ground would have applied if they bothered to use it in Martin's case. Which they didn't.
Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/QuoteJurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.
Wait... WHAT!??!?! How the FUCK, Florida?
Here's the article on it. Haven't heard any updates.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19382248-prosecution-zimmerman-witness-may-have-shown-up-too-early?lite)
Someone probably could, but the question is would it have any effect?
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, no. If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony. That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, no. If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony. That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, no. If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony. That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
Yes, you are correct. Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin. There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life.
Exactly my point. All he had to do was believe he was in danger. Therefore, legally, he could have legally killed Zimmerman. However, in reality, he couldn't legally kill Zimmerman, because he's black.No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, no. If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony. That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
Yes, you are correct. Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin. There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life.
Why did Zimmerman have to threaten Martin? I thought that (this court at least) said that Stand your ground is in effect if the defender BELIEVES that their life is in danger?
Zimmerman was released because the jury believed that HE believed that Martin might have killed him. Martin was stalked and cornered by an armed thug, now explain to me why Martin had to have proof that his life was in danger?
(I hate to say, is it because he was black? But the only other differences are that he was unarmed and that he is now dead.)
All for the love of god, not this shit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/was-treyvon-at-7-11-buying-skittles-and-fruit-juice-to-make-a-drug/).QuoteWas Trayvon at 7-11 Buying Skittles and Fruit Juice to Make a Drug?
No, unless you could show that Martin felt his life was threatened, whether that threat was real or not.Obama's speech was awesome.The right wing reaction is harsh but unsurprising.Legally, yes, because he thought his life was threatened. In reality? No. He's black.
Anyways, I had a thought. Assuming Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, could Stand Your Ground apply for his case?
Legally, no. If assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would not have been covered as he would have been in the process of committing a felony. That is unless you could show that Zimmerman threatened Martin to the point Martin feared for his life.
Yes, you are correct. Zimmerman would have have had to actually threatened Martin. There was just no way for the state to show Martin feared for his life.
Why did Zimmerman have to threaten Martin? I thought that (this court at least) said that Stand your ground is in effect if the defender BELIEVES that their life is in danger?
Zimmerman was released because the jury believed that HE believed that Martin might have killed him. Martin was stalked and cornered by an armed thug, now explain to me why Martin had to have proof that his life was in danger?
(I hate to say, is it because he was black? But the only other differences are that he was unarmed and that he is now dead.)
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.(click to show/hide)
The Conspiratards have chimed in, and I have to say I thought this would have happened much sooner.
Trayvon Martin Never Exsisted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NQWqjiSUc
How the fuck do you look up school enrollment of minors?
Which is ironic, considering the photos of people with the same name (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp) used to portray Trayvon in a negative light.The Conspiratards have chimed in, and I have to say I thought this would have happened much sooner.
Trayvon Martin Never Exsisted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7NQWqjiSUc
How the fuck do you look up school enrollment of minors?
I can't help thinking this is a poe. Claiming there's nobody...not one single person...named Trayvon Martin in a country of 300 million people? I find that VERY difficult to believe, particularly since the screenshot they showed seemed to have double-digit results.
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.(click to show/hide)
I have to say his clothes are not the baggy gansta sag, the right said they were
Considering the fuck-up that gave us the picture of Trayvon Martin's corpse, that's extra stupid.(click to show/hide)