On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Edit: I found where the claim was from. Still hard to believe.
Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
What if Tray thought he was defending himself? This is the exact reason why the dispatcher should have made it clear for Zimmerman to not follow. Misunderstandings happen because people do stupid shit.
The dispatcher should have made it clear to not follow him? Did you hear the recording? He said explicitly that he shouldn't do that.
On March 22 2012 09:11 Omnipresent wrote: These should be added to the OP.
Zimmerman's 911 call:
A witness's call: (you can hear the confrontation and the shot)
Florida's "stand your ground" self defense law is getting a lot of attention here. The trouble is that Zimmerman didn't stand his ground. He actively pursued Martin even though Martin hadn't done anything wrong. I also find it difficult to imagine he could make a believable case that he was under thread to deadly force.
Zimmerman's 911 call is particularly revealing. He doesn't sound like a concerned citizen, at least to me. He sounds eager, and appears to be looking for a confrontation. There's also been some talk about the "fucking [unintelligible]" line in the call. It sounds to some, myself included, that he is saying "fucking coons," a racial slur, under his breath. It's at about 1:52 in the first clip above, if you want to check it yourself.
Im wondering why the operator asked "is he black or hispanic" nearly immediately after the Zimmerman reported "someone who looks like he's on drugs walking around".
This whole thing smack of racially induced confirmation bias of a crime being committed. And to shoot and kill someone for theft is about as 1800's and backwards as it gets. And thats assuming he was actually committing any crime at all, as a black 17 year old kid.
well, he could have not got out of his car. not followed martin when told not to by 911. Alot of things. also pretty much no one in FL believes the zimmerman was being beat up story. though an autopsy results could clearly prove this. since the bullet would have has to enter from below the heart in order to kill him. if he was shot in ANY other manner, then the men were standing or zimmerman was on top. note that everything happened within 1 minute. since the 4 minute phonecall w/ his girlfriend cut out 1 minute before the police arrived and no gunshot was on that call. Had zimmerman remained in his car for 1 more minute, martin would be alive. besides how it's possible a <160 pound 17 year old could take down a sober 250 pound man is beyond me. either zimmerman was drunk, and thus at fault and committing a crime, or it never happened.
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
What if Tray thought he was defending himself? This is the exact reason why the dispatcher should have made it clear for Zimmerman to not follow. Misunderstandings happen because people do stupid shit.
When you're defending yourself and have the other guy on the ground on his back and you're on top, you normally stop punching them when they're screaming for help. And as the facts that the news articles skipped over show, it was zimmerman that was yelling for help, not the other guy.
....... Are you completely forgetting that this is not a uniform police officer? And has no right to detain or even follow someone around like that. I don't have the right to tail you where ever you go because I feel like it. And you can press charges for it. Tray knew he was being follow (says so on his phone) and was possibly worried for his own life or phsyical safety (thats the definition of Menacing). So by going on your statement, its okay for Zimmerman to use unnecessary force, but not Tray? Not once did I say it was Tray screaming in that statement, and its actually not that important who was screaming.
Zimmerman fucked up. He should not have followed, and he should not have had a gun. Observing does not give you the right to act like a police officer. And if Zimmerman did detain people for the police in the past and they didn't ever say anything to him about it being a safety issue, they aren't doing their job. There are very few instances where it is alright for a citizen to try and detain someone. Tray had probably done nothing wrong in his own eyes, and was just as suspicious of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman was of him.
What gives Zimmerman the right to use deadly force and not Tray? Tray was killed for probably doing what he thought was right, and Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right. Zimmerman was acting irresponsibly and it led to the loss of life. He should be guilty of at least something. Negligence, manslaughter, menacing, trespassing, use of unncessary force.
Edit: Someone said earlier that the dispatcher should have been more forcefull when he asked him not to follow. Can't agree more.
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Zimmerman is overweight and a lot shorter than Trayvon. I don't get why you would think Zimmerman being out of shape somehow gives him an advantage when pinned on the ground on his back while being beaten.
We can probably come to a reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman being overweight was not advantageous at all and that physically Trayvon had the upper hand, because it was Zimmerman who got pinned on his back. If Zimmerman was so overwhelmingly physically superior how did he end up on his back screaming for help?
On March 23 2012 05:22 PrinceXizor wrote: well, he could have not got out of his car. not followed martin when told not to by 911. Alot of things. also pretty much no one in FL believes the zimmerman was being beat up story. though an autopsy results could clearly prove this. since the bullet would have has to enter from below the heart in order to kill him. if he was shot in ANY other manner, then the men were standing or zimmerman was on top. note that everything happened within 1 minute. since the 4 minute phonecall w/ his girlfriend cut out 1 minute before the police arrived and no gunshot was on that call. Had zimmerman remained in his car for 1 more minute, martin would be alive.
zimmerman certainly put himself in a stupid position. however, he felt it was his job (stupidly or not) to patrol the neighborhood, he didn't know this kid, he thought the kid was suspicious and he followed him. probably not the brightest thing to do. this doesnt mean he didnt act in self defense.
also, if FL doesn't believe the "being beat up story," how do they explain the blood and grass stains? i guess he could have slipped and fell (on both his front and back).
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Zimmerman is overweight and a lot shorter than Trayvon. I don't get why you would think Zimmerman being out of shape somehow gives him an advantage when pinned on the ground on his back while being beaten.
We can probably come to a reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman being overweight was not advantageous at all and that physically Trayvon had the upper hand, because it was Zimmerman who got pinned on his back. If Zimmerman was so overwhelmingly physically superior how did he end up on his back screaming for help?
assuming "eyewitnesses" can't be capable of lying, or simply being plain wrong. do you realize that eyewitness testimony is actually the most unreliable? They showed it in high school psych films, the fleshed it out in college psych courses. I myself have had my memory mixed up, in contradiction of FACTS, when an adrenaline charged circumstance occured, due to a car flipping.
All eyewitness testimony should be suspect, because it's not accurate. Anyone who believes otherwise has no education on the subject.
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
he posted the source previously. how is zimmerman supposed to retreat when he is on the ground being punched by someone on top of him?
edit: i love your citation to an 1877 case to support your argument. you do realize that the applicable law was implemented in 2005.
Simple. It's called precedence, the foundation of the American legal system.
actually its not precedent. its an Indiana Supreme Court case (Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52), which doesn't apply in Florida. oops.
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
he posted the source previously. how is zimmerman supposed to retreat when he is on the ground being punched by someone on top of him?
edit: i love your citation to an 1877 case to support your argument. you do realize that the applicable law was implemented in 2005.
Simple. It's called precedence, the foundation of the American legal system.
actually its not precedent. its an Indiana Supreme Court case (Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52), which doesn't apply in Florida. oops.
Just because the case is from another state doesn't mean it doesn't set a precedent. Do you know what a precedent is? You think lawyers don't quote decisions from previous trials in other states from other periods in time? 'oops'
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and led to this incident. dispatch told him not to pursue, but he did. if i was martin, i would feel threatened by some guy following me and questioning my own business. martin could have been defending himself, but zimmerman was the one with the gun which he used to kill martin in his own self defense.
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and lead it to the death of an innocent person.
i could easily drive into bad area looking for drug dealers, pick on him for selling drugs and shoot him when i feel threatened for self-defense. the problem is that it seems the law protects such behavior when it shouldnt.
zimmerman acted on SUSPICION. this is such a big deal, so many are ignoring it.
On March 23 2012 05:22 PrinceXizor wrote: well, he could have not got out of his car. not followed martin when told not to by 911. Alot of things. also pretty much no one in FL believes the zimmerman was being beat up story. though an autopsy results could clearly prove this. since the bullet would have has to enter from below the heart in order to kill him. if he was shot in ANY other manner, then the men were standing or zimmerman was on top. note that everything happened within 1 minute. since the 4 minute phonecall w/ his girlfriend cut out 1 minute before the police arrived and no gunshot was on that call. Had zimmerman remained in his car for 1 more minute, martin would be alive.
zimmerman certainly put himself in a stupid position. however, he felt it was his job (stupidly or not) to patrol the neighborhood, he didn't know this kid, he thought the kid was suspicious and he followed him. probably not the brightest thing to do. this doesnt mean he didnt act in self defense.
also, if FL doesn't believe the "being beat up story," how do they explain the blood and grass stains? i guess he could have slipped and fell (on both his front and back).
so when i move to florida, im gonna carry a gun with me and follow whoever i please and then if i get into a confrontation, ill just shoot the guy and claim self defense.
that's essentially what everyone who is coming to this idiot's defense is condoning.
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
What if Tray thought he was defending himself? This is the exact reason why the dispatcher should have made it clear for Zimmerman to not follow. Misunderstandings happen because people do stupid shit.
When you're defending yourself and have the other guy on the ground on his back and you're on top, you normally stop punching them when they're screaming for help. And as the facts that the news articles skipped over show, it was zimmerman that was yelling for help, not the other guy.
....... Are you completely forgetting that this is not a uniform police officer? And has no right to detain or even follow someone around like that. I don't have the right to tail you where ever you go because I feel like it. And you can press charges for it. Tray knew he was being follow (says so on his phone) and was possibly worried for his own life or phsyical safety (thats the definition of Menacing). So by going on your statement, its okay for Zimmerman to use unnecessary force, but not Tray? Not once did I say it was Tray screaming in that statement, and its actually not that important who was screaming.
Zimmerman fucked up. He should not have followed, and he should not have had a gun. Observing does not give you the right to act like a police officer. And if Zimmerman did detain people for the police in the past and they didn't ever say anything to him about it being a safety issue, they aren't doing their job. There are very few instances where it is alright for a citizen to try and detain someone. Tray had probably done nothing wrong in his own eyes, and was just as suspicious of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman was of him.
What gives Zimmerman the right to use deadly force and not Tray? Tray was killed for probably doing what he thought was right, and Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right. Zimmerman was acting irresponsibly and it led to the loss of life. He should be guilty of at least something. Negligence, manslaughter, menacing, trespassing, use of unncessary force.
Edit: Someone said earlier that the dispatcher should have been more forcefull when he asked him not to follow. Can't agree more.
what about bounty hunters? citizens arrest?
Honestly until Its been stated what really happened and who really yelled
and after listening to the call I dont really see anything wrong. this guy lives in a bad neighborhood and hes trying to stop that. It really sounds like he says fucking phones also. This guy does not come off as a racist one bit honestly
And I believe He will not be found guilty if tried, its self defense plain and simple
But if the family tries to sue for wrongful death, that is another story and I think they have an easy case for that and that is what they should try and pursue
kinda sounds like the white guys voice also in the background but idk I would need to hear the other kid to try and decide better but it really does sound like the white male
On March 22 2012 20:40 MadNeSs wrote: I dont get this, how can coming at someone, who is unarmed, and you are armed EVER be considered selfdefense? I dont get it, something is really wrong with America, this would never be seen as selfdefense in any other country, or they would atleast put the guy into costety (yes I spell like shit) while they investigated they crime. I mean he is carrying a gun, and they other guy is unarmed, doesnt even have a knife or anything, how the fuck can this be justified!?
in most states you have to make an attempt to retreat but be prevented from doing so in order for self defense to be claimed. florida's stand your grand law allows you to skip the attempt at retreat if you feel you are in mortal danger.
Zimmerman was on his back on the ground with Trayvon on top of him beating him.
Most states even without stand your ground laws would accept that this is not a position you can retreat from and was justifiable self-defense.
Yes, please. Tell us where the hell this came from. Also, Zimmerman is literally twice his size. Even if your claim is based on fact, Zimmerman would be able to retreat from that position. There is NO claim of self defense that warrants shooting the boy. None. Period. He was unarmed.
"In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
he posted the source previously. how is zimmerman supposed to retreat when he is on the ground being punched by someone on top of him?
edit: i love your citation to an 1877 case to support your argument. you do realize that the applicable law was implemented in 2005.
Simple. It's called precedence, the foundation of the American legal system.
actually its not precedent. its an Indiana Supreme Court case (Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52), which doesn't apply in Florida. oops.
Just because the case is from another state doesn't mean it doesn't set a precedent. Do you know what a precedent is? You think lawyers don't quote decisions from previous trials in other states from other periods in time? 'oops'
im a lawyer. so, i find your knowledge of precedents quite amusing. the fact that you called it "precedence" was the best part.
Florida's "stand your ground" self defense law is getting a lot of attention here. The trouble is that Zimmerman didn't stand his ground. He actively pursued Martin even though Martin hadn't done anything wrong. I also find it difficult to imagine he could make a believable case that he was under thread to deadly force.
Zimmerman's 911 call is particularly revealing. He doesn't sound like a concerned citizen, at least to me. He sounds eager, and appears to be looking for a confrontation. There's also been some talk about the "fucking [unintelligible]" line in the call. It sounds to some, myself included, that he is saying "fucking coons," a racial slur, under his breath. It's at about 1:52 in the first clip above, if you want to check it yourself.
Im wondering why the operator asked "is he black or hispanic" nearly immediately after the Zimmerman reported "someone who looks like he's on drugs walking around".
This whole thing smack of racially induced confirmation bias of a crime being committed. And to shoot and kill someone for theft is about as 1800's and backwards as it gets. And thats assuming he was actually committing any crime at all, as a black 17 year old kid.
edit: They removed 48-54 second time of the tape.
to be fair the operator asked is he white, black, our Hispanic
On March 23 2012 05:22 PrinceXizor wrote: well, he could have not got out of his car. not followed martin when told not to by 911. Alot of things. also pretty much no one in FL believes the zimmerman was being beat up story. though an autopsy results could clearly prove this. since the bullet would have has to enter from below the heart in order to kill him. if he was shot in ANY other manner, then the men were standing or zimmerman was on top. note that everything happened within 1 minute. since the 4 minute phonecall w/ his girlfriend cut out 1 minute before the police arrived and no gunshot was on that call. Had zimmerman remained in his car for 1 more minute, martin would be alive.
zimmerman certainly put himself in a stupid position. however, he felt it was his job (stupidly or not) to patrol the neighborhood, he didn't know this kid, he thought the kid was suspicious and he followed him. probably not the brightest thing to do. this doesnt mean he didnt act in self defense.
also, if FL doesn't believe the "being beat up story," how do they explain the blood and grass stains? i guess he could have slipped and fell (on both his front and back).
unfortunately under florida law, zimmerman pursuing martin removes his ability to claim stand your ground. it's in the law. so even if he was just following with his own sense of right and wrong, if martin turned and attacked him after zimmerman got out of his car with a loaded weapon, the stand your ground law points to martin being in the right and zimmerman in the wrong. If you are attacked performing a malicious act (like stalking) you cannot claim self defense. That's the whole point. the police shouldn't have arrested zimmerman on the spot, but after hearing the 911 call, he can no longer claim self defense under florida law, Unless martin was armed with a deadly weapon. Thats just the pure fact of the law he is using to defend himself. no weapon was found on martin, therefore no self defense claim can be made, regardless of circumstance. and also keep in mind deadly weapon has a surprisingly loose definition in FL. it's not just obvious weapons. if martin got into a car, or grabbed any bit of plywood or something laying around, thats a deadly weapon in the state of florida. a can of tea and skittles, are not. there was a case in jacksonville a few years back (near where i grew up) that a man was shot because he threw a full can of soda at another person at a sporting event, it was rules that it was NOT a deadly weapon and he was not able to use stand your ground. The reason FL doesn't buy the story, is we know our laws better than outsiders, and regardless of the situation, he was in the wrong doing what he did. Even pulling out his gun in FL is a violation punishable by 2 years.Firing a gun in a residential area is another penalty with 2 years, aiming at a person is 5 and hittin someone is 10. these are minimum sentences. the police must automatically charge him with these charges, even if they are later dropped due to stand your ground, which the police would find faulty due to the 911 call. he may not get murder, but he'll get gun violations for sure. the police didn't even check the gun registration at the time, thats a serious flaw in the PD. the head of the sanford PD stepped down recently because the city council showed no confidence in his abilities to handle his duties correctly.
On March 23 2012 05:32 jinorazi wrote: why does what happened matter?
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and led to this incident. dispatch told him not to pursue, but he did. if i was martin, i would feel threatened by some guy following me and questioning my own business. martin could have been defending himself, but zimmerman was the one with the gun which he used to kill martin in his own self defense.
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and lead it to the death of an innocent person.
i could easily drive into bad area looking for drug dealers, pick on him for selling drugs and shoot him when i feel threatened for self-defense. the problem is that it seems the law protects such behavior when it shouldnt.
Edit: I've calmed down some. This whole thing has me heated up, obviously. I DID read the whole post, more than once. And even after reading it... Whatever, I missed something. My bad. This whole thing is just so fucked up and sad.
On March 23 2012 05:32 jinorazi wrote: why does what happened matter?
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and led to this incident. dispatch told him not to pursue, but he did. if i was martin, i would feel threatened by some guy following me and questioning my own business. martin could have been defending himself, but zimmerman was the one with the gun which he used to kill martin in his own self defense.
zimmerman picked a fight out of suspicion and lead it to the death of an innocent person.
i could easily drive into bad area looking for drug dealers, pick on him for selling drugs and shoot him when i feel threatened for self-defense. the problem is that it seems the law protects such behavior when it shouldnt.
Why does what happened matter? Because a KID who did NOTHING wrong is fucking DEAD. You see senseless death/murder and you just shrug it off? Wow, that's fucking cold.
wtf is wrong with you? people are arguing about whos fault it is depending on who's the one defending. i stated what started this whole event is the problem, not how it went. calm the fuck down.
EPT
