|
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 17:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Probably your best bet would be to get in touch with a Florida court. Google would be a good starting place to find the contact info. GL!
So far, searching the penal code online has been VERY fruitful. I just can't find this particular statute or something equivalent to it. Assault, battery, kidnapping, trespassing, etc were all ez to find.
|
On March 22 2012 17:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:34 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 22 2012 16:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 16:29 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. Yeah the kid threw his Skittles at the man and the man shot him with a gun in self-defense obviously. It's pretty much common sense that the man AT LEAST gets investigated for what he did, if you kill someone, regardless of self-defense, manslaughter, or murder, it's still something serious as fuck and should be investigated, to at least confirm it. It's sad that everyone in this thread is turning this into some sort of racist debate, at least it's good to know where I live things like this rarely happen. he is being investigated. but only after lots of people made a huge deal about it. disturbing and that is based on? news. journalists. reporting. etc. the usual. nothing special/magical can you show me something that says they didnt investigate it? because when you find a body on the ground. you dont just walk away. why? im not talking about a police investigation, im talking about a justice department/FBI investigation. what are you getting at? no beating around the bush pls
they are investigating it. there is a grand jury. people are saying they delayed it, but i havent seen anything saying that. its not like grand juries appear out of thin air.
|
On March 22 2012 17:03 Leto II wrote:
-->reasons why guns should not be available to the mass population (its full of idiots)
ironically, this is also a reason TO allow guns out there. I need to protect myself from all the idiots!!!!
|
This is funny. Way to give an accurate non-biased, non-sensationalized account.
|
This story has been in the news here a lot too...really fucked up.
|
On March 22 2012 17:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:53 ccherng wrote:On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(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.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true. Here is an interesting thought experiment to think about regarding the law. One of two things happened: (1) Zimmerman initiated the fight and shot Martin. Uncontroversial murder (2) or Martin initiated the fight so Zimmerman can claim self defense. But according to the "stand your ground" law Martin is legally entitled to try to kill Zimmerman since Zimmerman following him is clearly a perceived threat to his life. So If Martin had killed Zimmerman then he could uncontroversially claim self defense. And here Zimmerman has killed Martin and is claiming self defense. The IRONY is that Martin can legally initiate the fight in self defense and get killed by Zimmerman and then Zimmerman can claim self defense. So the IRONY is that no matter who kills who the other can claim self defense. Of course this is based on the assumption that you believe Zimmerman can claim bullshit self defense. no, someone "pursuing" you is not a reasonable threat to your life and justification to kill them. The case isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. It has to do with culpability and how much Zimmerman's actions/negligence led to Trayvon's death. There should definitely be a trial, but it's not as simple as 1 dead body + 1 guy with gun = 1 murder
The issue is not what you think. The issue is how the law interprets "stand your ground".
|
On March 22 2012 17:14 lisward wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:07 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 17:02 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 16:55 BlackJack wrote:He's a legislator, not a legal expert. What he says has little bearing on whether or not it is applicable so we shouldn't stop discussing it just because he gave his opinion. You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for. Lol? What does that even mean? Of course his opinion is perfectly "valid." Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid. That doesn't change the fact that he is a legislator and not a legal expert and what he says has little bearing on whether or not this law is applicable. It is because of that fact that he passed the law that he knows exactly when and whether the law is applicable. In this case where people are unsure whether it is applicable or not, you look at the Legislative Intent. That is where his word as a legislator has bearing on whether his law is applicable.
That's why we have a judicial system. They determine what the spirit of the law is, the legislator doesn't tell us when or not to prosecute a case. It's a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch passes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch rules on the laws.
|
On March 22 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote: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.
You heard Zimmerman in the first 911 call. Compare that to the frantically pleading and screaming voice heard on the second and described by the lady on the call as the victim's.
|
tbh it might be the case, but i am more than suspicious concerning the article in combination with the petition.
i just read an article about the arabic sight of the wall street protest in the US. according to that article it was the start of a revolution..
|
On March 22 2012 17:25 hp.Shell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote: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. You heard Zimmerman in the first 911 call. Compare that to the frantically pleading and screaming voice heard on the second and described by the lady on the call as the victim's.
i did. when people scream its not that easy to tell their voice. plus, if its so easy to tell, why are they doing voice analyses on it?
|
After listening to the shooter's voice in call, I can be more than certain that he was either on drugs or there's something psychologically wrong with him. How the hell do you remain so calm during a call with the police while observing what he claims to be unusual behavior, let alone when he's carrying a fully loaded gun?
|
On March 22 2012 17:10 hp.Shell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:11 Wrongspeedy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 15:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:02 Leporello wrote:On March 22 2012 14:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 14:41 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 14:34 Anytus wrote:
The problem is this piece of the law, specifically:
(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.
Note that it says nothing about walking into a dangerous situation or having been able to retreat previously. Clearly, Zimmerman had the right to be on the street that night, provided the weapon he was carrying was legal and registered (if Florida requires that). He also had the right to chase the person. So, by all accounts he WAS in a place where he had a right to be and thus the law applies. This is a really gross oversight by the legislators in this case.
There is some question as to whether or not the 'unlawful activity' provision applies here. If Zimmerman assaulted the minor before he killed him then obviously he is not protected. However, if the minor started the altercation then it seems like the law covers Zimmerman. Of course there isn't really a way to prove this one way or the other. He did not have the right to follow or chase that person. Where do you get that? Unless someone is a danger to the public, he had absolutly no fucking right to chase that kid. HE BROKE THE LAW. He unlawfully detained someone with a weapon. AKA Kidnapping with a deadly weapon. End of story. Tray was the only person "defending" himself. He wasn't following anyone, he was going home. (Neighborhood watch. NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED EITHER) Sorry buddy, but you don't have the right to chase people into other peoples yards. And even with a permit to carry a concealed weapon there are a lot of things wrong about him having a gun and actively pursueing someone he thought "was up to no good". Just because you have a permit to own and carry a gun, doesn't mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want with it. there is nothing illegal about him following the kid. what law are you referring to that he supposedly broke? See my previous post for the detail you're missing, and think about how you'd feel if someone was following you... with a gun. I can't believe that's legal to stalk someone you don't know with a lethal weapon. That's what really makes this all seem third-world. if someone is walking around in your neighborhood, you can follow them. nothing illegal about it. Thats actually not true. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Its called Menacing. You don't even need a gun to make it illegal, you just have to make the person you are following uncomfortable enough to think they might be physically harmed. You might even run from someone who is doing it to you.... following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true. -Martin's father didn't say that. If you listen closely you can clearly distinguish the screams as coming from a black male. -Martin's girlfriend believes from her phonecall with him that he was pushed by Zimmerman after Martin asked why he was following him and Zimmerman asked him why he was there. -Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend while Zimmerman was stalking him. What kind of suspicious activity takes place with the perp chatting on the phone? (Chatting the key word)
Police say that Martin's father did say that. And what do you mean if you listen closely you can hear the scream is coming from a black male? There's no way you can know it's Trayvon screaming just because of your preconceived notion of how blacks typically sound.
|
On March 22 2012 17:25 hp.Shell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote: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. You heard Zimmerman in the first 911 call. Compare that to the frantically pleading and screaming voice heard on the second and described by the lady on the call as the victim's.
We don't know who was screaming. But I assumed it was Tray at first because he is the one who is dead, and was shot during the screaming.
Also Tray had an earpiece for his phone, and was described wearing a hoodie I believe. He probably couldn't tell he was on the phone.
|
How this is even POSSIBLE?
He KILLED someone!
Why he isn't in custody until the thing are clear????
|
On March 22 2012 17:29 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:25 hp.Shell wrote:On March 22 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote: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. You heard Zimmerman in the first 911 call. Compare that to the frantically pleading and screaming voice heard on the second and described by the lady on the call as the victim's. We don't know who was screaming. But I assumed it was Tray at first because he is the one who is dead, and was shot during the screaming.
Did you also read that Zimmerman had grass stains on the back of his shirt, a bloodied nose and back of head, and one caller said that "one guy is on top of the other." It sounds like Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, which is why he could have been screaming and why he fired the shot. btw, the screaming happened before the shot.
|
On March 22 2012 17:30 Flyingcookie wrote:
How this is even POSSIBLE?
He KILLED someone!
Why he isn't in custody until the thing are clear????
In the US when someone dies we don't immediately detain the person we think did it. You have to wait until you ahve enough evidence ot convince a judge that he/she might have done it. Unless you charge them with a crime (and you have to have enough evidence ot obtain a warrant to do that) you can hold them for a MAX of 72 hrs.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 22 2012 17:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:14 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 17:07 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 17:02 lisward wrote:On March 22 2012 16:55 BlackJack wrote:He's a legislator, not a legal expert. What he says has little bearing on whether or not it is applicable so we shouldn't stop discussing it just because he gave his opinion. You have no idea what you're talking about. His opinion is perfectly valid because he passed the law and he knows the context in which it was intended for. Lol? What does that even mean? Of course his opinion is perfectly "valid." Everyone's opinion is perfectly valid. That doesn't change the fact that he is a legislator and not a legal expert and what he says has little bearing on whether or not this law is applicable. It is because of that fact that he passed the law that he knows exactly when and whether the law is applicable. In this case where people are unsure whether it is applicable or not, you look at the Legislative Intent. That is where his word as a legislator has bearing on whether his law is applicable. That's why we have a judicial system. They determine what the spirit of the law is, the legislator doesn't tell us when or not to prosecute a case. It's a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch passes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch rules on the laws.
We have a very clear idea of the intent of law though. What he says is not definitive, but it does have bearing on whether it's applicable or not. Especially now that the case is widely public, it would take some extremely ballsy judicial activism to make a case against it.
|
On March 22 2012 17:32 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:29 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 17:25 hp.Shell wrote:On March 22 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 12:57 knOxStarcraft wrote: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. You heard Zimmerman in the first 911 call. Compare that to the frantically pleading and screaming voice heard on the second and described by the lady on the call as the victim's. We don't know who was screaming. But I assumed it was Tray at first because he is the one who is dead, and was shot during the screaming. Did you also read that Zimmerman had grass stains on the back of his shirt, a bloodied nose and back of head, and one caller said that "one guy is on top of the other." It sounds like Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, which is why he could have been screaming and why he fired the shot. btw, the screaming happened before the shot.
Yeah like I said I don't know who the screaming is (probably both of them at somepoint). But you can hear screaming in the backround right up to the gunshot. There isn't really a gap. There is screaming, a gun shot, then no screaming.
|
On March 22 2012 17:23 ccherng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 16:53 ccherng wrote:On March 22 2012 16:25 BlackJack wrote:On March 22 2012 16:08 gogatorsfoster wrote:On March 22 2012 15:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:42 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 15:37 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
following someone around is not menacing. menacing is much more than that. You mean like chasing them down, tackling them, then holding them at gunpoint. Yeah your right that is much more than "following" someone. Believe me, a cop can say your menacing for much less than what he did before he shot him. where you getting these facts from? because if we are making up facts, i would like to play that game too. Well the facts are that Zimmerman tells someone on the phone that he knows the kid is aware of his presence and is running. I'm not making things up. He stalked him, chased him, and detained him. All the while he is threatening. You do not chase someone down and detain them (even without a weapon) without being threatening or having risk of physical harm. Zimmerman was out of his rights before he even fired the weapon. He was also trespassing. Why do you feel the need to stick up for him so much? Let his attorney do that, if he even has to go to court.... im not defending him. i just dont like it when people make up shit. you obviously dont know the law, and you keep making up facts. we dont know what he did after he hung up the phone other than that he shot the kid. you know nothing else. so dotn make shit up. There is so much evidence.(Most of it well documented in the OP) First off he was on the phone with the cops he said that he was chasing the kid and they said he didnt need to do that. Next you hear the kid crying for help moments before he is being shot. This man put himself in that position the boy was not putting him into a life threatening position. Even if he could somehow claim self defense, He would be the one who put himself in danger in the first place. It's not a fact that Martin was crying for help. Zimmerman said it was him that was crying for help. Martin's father said the cries for help that he heard on the 911 tapes were not of his son. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back and a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. It appears to me that it was Martin that had the upper hand in the fight and Zimmerman fired because he couldn't subdue Martin physically. Doesn't make Zimmerman innocent, but you can't convict him on a narrative that you don't even know is true. Here is an interesting thought experiment to think about regarding the law. One of two things happened: (1) Zimmerman initiated the fight and shot Martin. Uncontroversial murder (2) or Martin initiated the fight so Zimmerman can claim self defense. But according to the "stand your ground" law Martin is legally entitled to try to kill Zimmerman since Zimmerman following him is clearly a perceived threat to his life. So If Martin had killed Zimmerman then he could uncontroversially claim self defense. And here Zimmerman has killed Martin and is claiming self defense. The IRONY is that Martin can legally initiate the fight in self defense and get killed by Zimmerman and then Zimmerman can claim self defense. So the IRONY is that no matter who kills who the other can claim self defense. Of course this is based on the assumption that you believe Zimmerman can claim bullshit self defense. no, someone "pursuing" you is not a reasonable threat to your life and justification to kill them. The case isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. It has to do with culpability and how much Zimmerman's actions/negligence led to Trayvon's death. There should definitely be a trial, but it's not as simple as 1 dead body + 1 guy with gun = 1 murder The issue is not what you think. The issue is how the law interprets "stand your ground".
That has to do with exactly what I said. Since there is a lack of evidence of the altercation the events leading up to the altercation become more important. Whether Zimmerman was the instigator is the most important thing to determine.
|
I hate how the operator was like "You do not need to follow him." Fuck, just yell, "DO NOT FOLLOW HIM!" As far as I can tell, it could have been self defense from the kid, not the other way around. Both of these operators in those videos sounds underqualified tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
