|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 22 2012 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:38 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. I would say describing someone as a black male is racism. you realize that police dispatchers want to know what race the person is, and he was describing the person so that a police officer can find him.
Yeah I agree I meant wouldnt. Sorry.
|
On March 22 2012 12:41 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:38 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. I would say describing someone as a black male is racism. you realize that police dispatchers want to know what race the person is, and he was describing the person so that a police officer can find him. If you listen again, he already tells the police officer he's a black male. He then says it again in the quote I posted right after saying his hands are in his waistband. The police officer didn't ask for the race twice.
he may have just been repeating himself. he didnt seem particularly concerned that the guy was a black male on the phone.
however, some people are saying he said "coon" during the conversation, but the tape is muddled. the neighbors also describe him as fixated on black males, but again that doesnt mean racism.
it may be racism, but it sure isnt blatant.
|
On March 22 2012 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:33 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:26 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. He bears the burden of proof. you have to prove murder before he has to prove self-defense. If he admits to pulling the trigger and ending a life... no. but he isnt admitting to anything; he is refusing to make a statement. so, the DA has to prove its case before he is obligated to do anything, including supporting his self defense claim. That depends on what you mean by "prove". That's not the word I would use for getting an indictment. i use it as it is used in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." we dont know what the DA will go for. if he goes for murder in the first, he will have to prove intent, which im pretty sure he wont be able to do. if he goes for murder in the second, he may have a better shot, but the punishment is not as harsh. nevertheless, until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to those, the defendant can sit back and laugh at him. he has no obligation to put forth any evidence or argument.
"In statements to police, Zimmerman claimed that Martin then attacked him and he shot the teenager in self-defense, police said."
I suppose that Zimmerman could recant and attempt to claim that he did not kill Trayvon Martin.... but that's incredibly unlikely. If this goes to trial, he's going to enter a self-defense plea and the burden of proof will be on him from the beginning.
|
On March 22 2012 12:40 Defacer wrote:
Soooooooo ... murder is legal in Florida now?
Seriously, imagine how easy it would be to call '911' in Florida, notify them that you're 'in danger' and just kill someone.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes other countries look at America cross-eyed.
Yeah this "stand your ground" bullshit has me a little worried. If there aren't witnesses, or all the witnesses are biased, killing someone "in self defense" seems way too easy of an argument right now. I wonder how many people are going to have to die before legislatures take a serious look at how these laws are being abused.
|
On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer.
It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow.
Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense.
|
On March 22 2012 12:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:41 knOxStarcraft wrote:On March 22 2012 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:38 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. I would say describing someone as a black male is racism. you realize that police dispatchers want to know what race the person is, and he was describing the person so that a police officer can find him. If you listen again, he already tells the police officer he's a black male. He then says it again in the quote I posted right after saying his hands are in his waistband. The police officer didn't ask for the race twice. he may have just been repeating himself. he didnt seem particularly concerned that the guy was a black male on the phone. however, some people are saying he said "coon" during the conversation, but the tape is muddled. the neighbors also describe him as fixated on black males, but again that doesnt mean racism. it may be racism, but it sure isnt blatant.
Ya ok, I'd agree with that, I probably made it sound worse than it was but I still strongly believe this guy is guilty for the other reasons I posted before.
|
On March 22 2012 12:46 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:33 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:26 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. He bears the burden of proof. you have to prove murder before he has to prove self-defense. If he admits to pulling the trigger and ending a life... no. but he isnt admitting to anything; he is refusing to make a statement. so, the DA has to prove its case before he is obligated to do anything, including supporting his self defense claim. That depends on what you mean by "prove". That's not the word I would use for getting an indictment. i use it as it is used in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." we dont know what the DA will go for. if he goes for murder in the first, he will have to prove intent, which im pretty sure he wont be able to do. if he goes for murder in the second, he may have a better shot, but the punishment is not as harsh. nevertheless, until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to those, the defendant can sit back and laugh at him. he has no obligation to put forth any evidence or argument. "In statements to police, Zimmerman claimed that Martin then attacked him and he shot the teenager in self-defense, police said."I suppose that Zimmerman could recant and attempt to claim that he did not kill Trayvon Martin.... but that's incredibly unlikely. If this goes to trial, he's going to enter a self-defense plea and the burden of proof will be on him from the beginning.
proving someone killed someone isnt enough. there are multiple degrees of murder. i guess if you are just going to give up on the higher degrees, you can just say he killed him. but thats not going to happen in such a high profile case. the fight is going to be over his intent to kill.
Homicide
Homicide is the unjustified killing of a human being. Homicide can be classified as murder or manslaughter. Under Florida law, there are three degrees of murder. Murder in the first degree is the premeditated killing or the death of a person during the commission of one of the following enumerated felonies: drug trafficking, arson, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, escape (from detention, arrest, trial or punishment), aggravated child abuse, aircraft piracy, bombing, fatal drug distribution, carjacking or home invasion robbery. A person can be convicted of first degree murder even though he or she did not actually kill anyone, did not plan to kill anyone, or was not present at the crime scene but was involved in the commission of an enumerated felony that resulted in a person's death. Murder in the first degree is a capital felony.
Murder in the second degree is an unjustified killing perpetrated by "an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" or the killing of a person during the commission of an enumerated felony in which the defendant was not the killer but was involved in committing the felony. Murder in the second degree is a first degree felony. Murder in the third degree occurs when a person kills during the commission of a nonenumerated felony. Murder in the third degree is a second degree felony. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person that does not rise to the definitional level of a murder. Manslaughter is a second degree felony
|
On March 22 2012 12:46 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:33 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:26 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. He bears the burden of proof. you have to prove murder before he has to prove self-defense. If he admits to pulling the trigger and ending a life... no. but he isnt admitting to anything; he is refusing to make a statement. so, the DA has to prove its case before he is obligated to do anything, including supporting his self defense claim. That depends on what you mean by "prove". That's not the word I would use for getting an indictment. i use it as it is used in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." we dont know what the DA will go for. if he goes for murder in the first, he will have to prove intent, which im pretty sure he wont be able to do. if he goes for murder in the second, he may have a better shot, but the punishment is not as harsh. nevertheless, until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to those, the defendant can sit back and laugh at him. he has no obligation to put forth any evidence or argument. "In statements to police, Zimmerman claimed that Martin then attacked him and he shot the teenager in self-defense, police said."I suppose that Zimmerman could recant and attempt to claim that he did not kill Trayvon Martin.... but that's incredibly unlikely. If this goes to trial, he's going to enter a self-defense plea and the burden of proof will be on him from the beginning.
From what I've heard on the news about Florida's 'Stand your Ground' law, the burden would be on the prosecution to overcome his self-defense assertion.
|
On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense.
What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him.
|
On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him.
well, according to the CNN article, they are doing voice analysis to see who was actually calling for help. its unclear whether it was the kid. plus, zimmerman apparently got bloodied so there was some confrontation, and he may have been calling for help.
|
On March 22 2012 12:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him. well, according to the CNN article, they are doing voice analysis to see who was actually calling for help. its unclear whether it was the kid. plus, zimmerman apparently got bloodied so there was some confrontation, and he may have been calling for help.
Seems pretty clear to me, just listen to the two videos.
|
If i was that kid, in the dark in Orlando, and I saw that fat troll with a gun on literaly running towards me.. I would book it and scream. Probably exactly what happened, and this racist fail vigilante shoots him because he is INSANE and needs to be given pills in apple sauce for the rest of his life.
RIP. 
|
On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him.
Sure but if you picked a fight and knew you were gonna lose/are losing/did lose, you would call of for help.
|
On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him. well, according to the CNN article, they are doing voice analysis to see who was actually calling for help. its unclear whether it was the kid. plus, zimmerman apparently got bloodied so there was some confrontation, and he may have been calling for help. Seems pretty clear to me, just listen to the two videos.
i listened to the videos. i have never heard the kid or zimmerman's voice before (and neither have you i assume), so how are we to determine who was calling for help? zimmerman apparently says it is him, i have no idea.
edit: i just listened to the video again. i didnt even hear anyone yell help. the lady just says that someone yelled help. you just hear screaming in the background.
|
On March 22 2012 12:52 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:46 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:33 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:26 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. He bears the burden of proof. you have to prove murder before he has to prove self-defense. If he admits to pulling the trigger and ending a life... no. but he isnt admitting to anything; he is refusing to make a statement. so, the DA has to prove its case before he is obligated to do anything, including supporting his self defense claim. That depends on what you mean by "prove". That's not the word I would use for getting an indictment. i use it as it is used in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." we dont know what the DA will go for. if he goes for murder in the first, he will have to prove intent, which im pretty sure he wont be able to do. if he goes for murder in the second, he may have a better shot, but the punishment is not as harsh. nevertheless, until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to those, the defendant can sit back and laugh at him. he has no obligation to put forth any evidence or argument. "In statements to police, Zimmerman claimed that Martin then attacked him and he shot the teenager in self-defense, police said."I suppose that Zimmerman could recant and attempt to claim that he did not kill Trayvon Martin.... but that's incredibly unlikely. If this goes to trial, he's going to enter a self-defense plea and the burden of proof will be on him from the beginning. From what I've heard on the news about Florida's 'Stand your Ground' law, the burden would be on the prosecution to overcome his self-defense assertion.
Read the law yourself.
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
I don't know about you, but it certainly doesn't look like a license to kill to me.
|
On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him.
It becomes much less relevant whether Zimmerman thought the kid was armed or not if Zimmerman perceived an attempt by the kid to get Zimmerman's gun.
|
pretty disgusting story. and the failure of the police to arrest/properly investigate this guy is most disheartening of all.
|
How is this guy still free? That's some serious bs when HE was the one stalking this kid, disobeyed a dispatcher's orders, and then SHOT the kid.
Hopefully that guy gets what he deserves, which is exactly the same he did to Trayvon. Otherwise it seems kinda dangerous to go to Florida if someone can just shoot you for no reason and get away with it...
|
On March 22 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:53 knOxStarcraft wrote:On March 22 2012 12:49 Kaitlin wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 knOxStarcraft wrote:
"...He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male..." as Zimmerman says. That makes me think this was a racial issue right away.
Zimmerman is also questioning the fact that someone is walking in the rain at around 7:00 PM... does he want the kid to bore a tunnel under the neighborhood to the house he wants or what?
Next he follows the kid after being told by the police to NOT follow the kid.
Then the voice calling for help does not sound anything like Zimmerman's voice from the 911 call.
Finally, this guy is a self-appointed neighborhood watch with a fucking gun!? All I see here is some fat scumbag who's on a powertrip and was too fat or stupid to become a police officer. It's a common mistake that I've been seeing in this story. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". That statement is NOT "being told by the police to not follow the kid". Arguments that Zimmerman was told not to follow the kid are completely wrong. The dispatcher merely said he doesn't have to, but Zimmerman had every right to follow. Also, the self-defense issue is a tricky one here. Even though the kid had only Skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman believed the kid went for his gun, that is an entirely different scenario. Very much similar to cops, as most police officers shot in the line of duty, are shot with their own guns. I'm not saying this is what happened here. I'm not sure we'll ever know what really happened. However, it's premature to argue that it couldn't possibly have been self-defense. What about the voice calling for help? It's clearly not Zimmerman's voice, so it has to be the kids. Do you think the kid was calling for help with his hands in his pants holding the Skittles he had? Not a chance. There is an EXTREMELY small chance Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed before he shot him. It becomes much less relevant whether Zimmerman thought the kid was armed or not if Zimmerman perceived an attempt by the kid to get Zimmerman's gun.
Because if someone is threatening to kill you with a gun YOU wouldn't try to get his weapon away from him when running is no longer an option?
|
On March 22 2012 12:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:46 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:33 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:26 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 12:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. He bears the burden of proof. you have to prove murder before he has to prove self-defense. If he admits to pulling the trigger and ending a life... no. but he isnt admitting to anything; he is refusing to make a statement. so, the DA has to prove its case before he is obligated to do anything, including supporting his self defense claim. That depends on what you mean by "prove". That's not the word I would use for getting an indictment. i use it as it is used in the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." we dont know what the DA will go for. if he goes for murder in the first, he will have to prove intent, which im pretty sure he wont be able to do. if he goes for murder in the second, he may have a better shot, but the punishment is not as harsh. nevertheless, until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to those, the defendant can sit back and laugh at him. he has no obligation to put forth any evidence or argument. "In statements to police, Zimmerman claimed that Martin then attacked him and he shot the teenager in self-defense, police said."I suppose that Zimmerman could recant and attempt to claim that he did not kill Trayvon Martin.... but that's incredibly unlikely. If this goes to trial, he's going to enter a self-defense plea and the burden of proof will be on him from the beginning. proving someone killed someone isnt enough. there are multiple degrees of murder. i guess if you are just going to give up on the higher degrees, you can just say he killed him. but thats not going to happen in such a high profile case. the fight is going to be over his intent to kill. Show nested quote +Homicide
Homicide is the unjustified killing of a human being. Homicide can be classified as murder or manslaughter. Under Florida law, there are three degrees of murder. Murder in the first degree is the premeditated killing or the death of a person during the commission of one of the following enumerated felonies: drug trafficking, arson, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, escape (from detention, arrest, trial or punishment), aggravated child abuse, aircraft piracy, bombing, fatal drug distribution, carjacking or home invasion robbery. A person can be convicted of first degree murder even though he or she did not actually kill anyone, did not plan to kill anyone, or was not present at the crime scene but was involved in the commission of an enumerated felony that resulted in a person's death. Murder in the first degree is a capital felony.
Murder in the second degree is an unjustified killing perpetrated by "an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" or the killing of a person during the commission of an enumerated felony in which the defendant was not the killer but was involved in committing the felony. Murder in the second degree is a first degree felony. Murder in the third degree occurs when a person kills during the commission of a nonenumerated felony. Murder in the third degree is a second degree felony. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person that does not rise to the definitional level of a murder. Manslaughter is a second degree felony
Well, yeah, if the prosecution wants murder one, they'll have to prove premeditation. But, if they go for a murder in the first degree, there will be lesser included charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
940
440
295
EPT
