|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
well, actually, with a tea and skittles in hand, it might be a little harder to run
i'm going to go ponder this, and I'll get back to you all
|
|
|
Also what's the deal with all you agreeing that you would instantly start running away from anyone getting out of a truck and walking towards you? My first reaction would be "Hey man, what's up?" not to turn and run away.
|
On March 23 2012 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:41 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 12:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 12:20 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 12:01 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 11:52 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 11:45 Zaqwe wrote:
What do you feel is unreasonable about what I have posted?
I don't see how Trayvon dying when he attacked someone changes what he did. That is bizarre and goes way beyond respect for the dead.
It's sad, but please be rational. Throwing out all logic and justice because someone died is not productive. I think he takes issue with you saying Trayvon attacked him without any evidence to support it. Having the upper hand during a fight does not equate starting it. As well, your eyewitness is not the only one, and conflicting accounts are out there, so claiming a superior stance on the issue because of it is annoying I would assume. Indeed. Thank you. There is the account of Zimmerman himself, who says he was attacked. What reason is there to think he is lying? He is of good character and known by his neighbors, has prevented crimes before and stopped criminals, and was the first person to phone police that night. His story of what happened after being attacked is consistent with witness accounts. A witness saw Zimmerman screaming for help and being beaten while laying on his back, so there is again no reason to doubt Zimmerman. Your claim that Trayvon could have been attacked first is a possible scenario but unlikely given the circumstances. Furthermore the autopsy would have shown wounds on Trayvon from an assault. People are so quick to condemn Zimmerman when all available evidence suggests he is innocent. didnt he originally say he was attacked right after he got out of his vehicle? that seems inconsistent with the 911 calls and the fact that the confrontation took place after he walked some distance and in someone's yard apparently. I am trying to find some things about this but maybe you can help me and just give some nice links and excerpts to make it easy. I haven't noticed any contradictions or lies in what Zimmerman has said. okay i found conflicting articles. one says this, which was in the police's letter to the public: "Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon." the other said this: "Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind after leaving his vehicle." http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-wont-keep-george-zimmerman-out-of-prison-for-killing-trayvon-martin-shoddy-policework-might/the girlfriend claimed either would be inconsistent because she was talking with him on the phone immediately before the confrontation: This is inconsistent with the pursuit as described by Martin’s girlfriend, who made it clear that Martin was trying to evade Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was the aggressor before the call ended. http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-wont-keep-george-zimmerman-out-of-prison-for-killing-trayvon-martin-shoddy-policework-might/so, everything is inconsistent..... lol....
The first two are consistent, just worded differently. And that is the reporter's wording.
Trayvon was trying to evade Zimmerman when he was still in the truck. I suppose he thought punching the truck would be ineffective.
|
On March 23 2012 12:49 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:32 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 12:30 rouzga wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2012 12:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:21 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 11:33 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 10:17 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 10:06 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:
[quote]
The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet.
I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet. Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life. Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something. From reports are inconsistent, details are unknown, details are unknown again, lots of speculation going on in the thread, and we can't tell what happened yet, and from that you conclude that I must automatically despise someone and am not open to any other viewpoints. That's just silly. he made his account just to say whatever he feels like in this thread. he will just troll people all day. + Show Spoiler +Are you sure you want to lose your credibility for someone how just turns other people's word around and states lies as if they were facts?
Just the posts of 2 pages from this guy:
I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing.
I don't see how anything Zimmerman did justified making a preemptive attack on him. Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help makes it even harder to justify.
Trayvon didn't do anything wrong until he decided to knock someone to the ground and pummel them in the head. At that point he stopped being innocent.
I suppose he took the pistol with him just in case he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head while nobody came to his aid.
Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life.
Well at least the media does. They are treating Zimmerman as though he were White for the sake of stirring up racial controversy (and thus ratings), when in reality he is a mixed race Hispanic.
It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on.
I don't understand guys like him, all patriotism aside, who just want to stir things up, and it's bad the mods don't ban him, but defending such a person, who even puts the blame on the DEAD victim without reading what he says is just awful . however misguided he may be. at least he provides support for what he is saying. you dont just ban people who have different opinions from you. Did you read my post? You know that he "provides" this support by just making up lies? "Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on" Does he have any evidence for this? "Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help" Same here. Etc. He is just constructing his own story around his point of view without evidence although he claims that noone else has evidence for their side of the story. I'm not saying either side is right/wrong or guilty/not guilty UNTIL proven. But to prove this they have to ask further questions. What you are doing is listening to some fanatic patriotistic defender of this right. He would bend any argument or lie until it fits his side of the story. That's not providing anything im going to preempt his post. he is basing it on this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=46#920 I did read all of the posts. Being the one on the ground holding someone down who tried to put a gun on your head doesn't make you someone who is doing a "preemptive assault" or "beat him in the head when he was already knocked down" You see where this leads to? And in your previous post I see that you already recognize the inconsistence in this guy's posts "didnt he originally say he was attacked right after he got out of his vehicle? that seems inconsistent with the 911 calls and the fact that the confrontation took place after he walked some distance and in someone's yard apparently." There is no evidence yet to suggest that Zimmerman took out his weapon at any point before when he used it. Should all try to keep things factual based with our opinion on those facts. There is also no evidence that Trayvon started the fight, yet lots of people seem to assume this despite the fact it was confirmed he originally decided to flee when he started being chased by someone weighing almost 100lb more than him. Saw a post earlier that said this Show nested quote +It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on . I find it absolutely laughable that somebody actually expects a 17 year old kid, being chased by an older male significantly heavier than he is during the dead of the night to just stop and have a conversation with the bloke lol. You would need to have literally no survival instincts if when being pursued by someone older and stronger than you (with a gun) your choice of action is to just stand there and hope the guy wants a conversation.
In fact, almost all evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the fight. Which is what makes the whole self-defense argument ridiculous and insulting. What happened in their "fight" doesn't matter -- it's what or who caused the fight that mattered. And to put it in language that even children can understand and appreciate: Zimmerman started it. Evidence such as recorded testimony from Zimmerman himself that he was following the kid around with a loaded gun, is the only evidence needed to debunk "self-defense" and for the police to do, y'know, some actual work.
I think we need to ask ourselves how an adult can claim "self-defense" for shooting a kid that he admittedly followed around, in suspicion, with a gun. Just because Zimmerman lost a fight that he initiated doesn't make for self-defense. And, yes, all evidence suggests Zimmerman initiated that fight (except for the testimony of Zimmerman himself, of course).
The premise for self-defense has apparently gone haywire.
If I follow and approach someone I don't know, across private property, I'm provoking them -- and then if I get my ass kicked (assuming, for no reason, that that is actually what happened here), that doesn't give me the right to then shoot and kill.
So even if we're to believe that Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman after Zimmerman chased this kid down -- isn't that Trayvon's right to defend himself? Why are some of us so anxious to assume that "right to defend" goes to the a-hole with the gun and an agenda?
|
On March 23 2012 12:59 Bill Murray wrote:
well, actually, with a tea and skittles in hand, it might be a little harder to run
i'm going to go ponder this, and I'll get back to you all
I've never done a 40yrd with skittles and tea in hand, and I could see how it might add a little time but I'm still going to out run this short 250lb hispanic guy who I already have a lead on.
|
On March 23 2012 12:52 Bill Murray wrote:
Grass stains on his back?
Seems like he was getting his ass beaten by that 17 year old
If he's getting punched in the head, he could suffer brain damage
Self defense.
I think the kid who got chased down and targetted for no reason by the guy with the gun has a better argument for self-defence. By the sounds of it, the kid was creeped out by the 250 pound mexican following him in a truck because he was black and decided to see what the fuck he was doing, and then got shot because the stalker initiated something he couldn't handle.
If I followed someone around in a truck with a loaded weapon on me, and then started a confrontation with them, I wouldn't call it self-defence when I shot them because I was getting my ass handed to me.
Seriously, it's the "stand your ground" law. I think the dude standing his ground in regards to being assailed is a more applicable example then the guy who initiates confrontations with teens while armed to the teeth because they're eating fucking skittles.
|
In 2005, George Zimmerman was twice accused of either criminal misconduct or violence.
That July, Zimmerman — 21 at the time — was at a bar near the University of Central Florida when a friend was arrested by state alcohol agents on suspicion of serving underage drinkers, according to an arrest report.
Zimmerman was talking with his friend, became profane and pushed an agent who tried to escort him away, the report said. Authorities said he was arrested after a short struggle.
Charged with resisting arrest without violence, he avoided conviction by entering a pretrial-diversion program, something common for first-time offenders.
A month later, court records show, a woman filed a petition for an injunction against Zimmerman, citing domestic violence. It's unclear what led to the petition, but Zimmerman responded by filing a petition of his own the following day.
Records show injunctions were later issued in both cases. Reached by email, the woman would not comment on her past with Zimmerman or his current situation.
Source
|
On March 23 2012 13:02 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 12:41 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 12:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 12:20 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 12:01 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 11:52 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 11:45 Zaqwe wrote:
What do you feel is unreasonable about what I have posted?
I don't see how Trayvon dying when he attacked someone changes what he did. That is bizarre and goes way beyond respect for the dead.
It's sad, but please be rational. Throwing out all logic and justice because someone died is not productive. I think he takes issue with you saying Trayvon attacked him without any evidence to support it. Having the upper hand during a fight does not equate starting it. As well, your eyewitness is not the only one, and conflicting accounts are out there, so claiming a superior stance on the issue because of it is annoying I would assume. Indeed. Thank you. There is the account of Zimmerman himself, who says he was attacked. What reason is there to think he is lying? He is of good character and known by his neighbors, has prevented crimes before and stopped criminals, and was the first person to phone police that night. His story of what happened after being attacked is consistent with witness accounts. A witness saw Zimmerman screaming for help and being beaten while laying on his back, so there is again no reason to doubt Zimmerman. Your claim that Trayvon could have been attacked first is a possible scenario but unlikely given the circumstances. Furthermore the autopsy would have shown wounds on Trayvon from an assault. People are so quick to condemn Zimmerman when all available evidence suggests he is innocent. didnt he originally say he was attacked right after he got out of his vehicle? that seems inconsistent with the 911 calls and the fact that the confrontation took place after he walked some distance and in someone's yard apparently. I am trying to find some things about this but maybe you can help me and just give some nice links and excerpts to make it easy. I haven't noticed any contradictions or lies in what Zimmerman has said. okay i found conflicting articles. one says this, which was in the police's letter to the public: "Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon." the other said this: "Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind after leaving his vehicle." http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-wont-keep-george-zimmerman-out-of-prison-for-killing-trayvon-martin-shoddy-policework-might/the girlfriend claimed either would be inconsistent because she was talking with him on the phone immediately before the confrontation: This is inconsistent with the pursuit as described by Martin’s girlfriend, who made it clear that Martin was trying to evade Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was the aggressor before the call ended. http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-wont-keep-george-zimmerman-out-of-prison-for-killing-trayvon-martin-shoddy-policework-might/so, everything is inconsistent..... lol.... The first two are consistent, just worded differently. And that is the reporter's wording. Trayvon was trying to evade Zimmerman when he was still in the truck. I suppose he thought punching the truck would be ineffective.
i read the second as saying he was just getting out of his truck and was attacked (i.e., right after his call with the dispatcher), and the first as he went looking for the kid, didnt find him, returned to his car and then was attacked. i dont even care anymore. there are just so many inconsistencies in the news articles.
|
On March 23 2012 12:58 NotSorry wrote:
No evidence of a preemptive assault.
There is Zimmerman's testimony that he was attacked.
There is also Trayvon's body, which would have had wounds other than the gunshot if he was assaulted.
|
On March 23 2012 13:05 Zaqwe wrote:There is Zimmerman's testimony that he was attacked. There is also Trayvon's body, which would have had wounds other than the gunshot if he was assaulted.
You don't have to do damage to assault someone. I could walk up to Anderson Silva and try to punch him in the face and he'd have no bruises but I still assaulted him.
|
On March 23 2012 13:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:49 Ryder. wrote:On March 23 2012 12:32 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 12:30 rouzga wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2012 12:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:21 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 11:33 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 10:17 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 10:06 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:
[quote]
The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet.
I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet. Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life. Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something. From reports are inconsistent, details are unknown, details are unknown again, lots of speculation going on in the thread, and we can't tell what happened yet, and from that you conclude that I must automatically despise someone and am not open to any other viewpoints. That's just silly. he made his account just to say whatever he feels like in this thread. he will just troll people all day. + Show Spoiler +Are you sure you want to lose your credibility for someone how just turns other people's word around and states lies as if they were facts?
Just the posts of 2 pages from this guy:
I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing.
I don't see how anything Zimmerman did justified making a preemptive attack on him. Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help makes it even harder to justify.
Trayvon didn't do anything wrong until he decided to knock someone to the ground and pummel them in the head. At that point he stopped being innocent.
I suppose he took the pistol with him just in case he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head while nobody came to his aid.
Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life.
Well at least the media does. They are treating Zimmerman as though he were White for the sake of stirring up racial controversy (and thus ratings), when in reality he is a mixed race Hispanic.
It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on.
I don't understand guys like him, all patriotism aside, who just want to stir things up, and it's bad the mods don't ban him, but defending such a person, who even puts the blame on the DEAD victim without reading what he says is just awful . however misguided he may be. at least he provides support for what he is saying. you dont just ban people who have different opinions from you. Did you read my post? You know that he "provides" this support by just making up lies? "Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on" Does he have any evidence for this? "Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help" Same here. Etc. He is just constructing his own story around his point of view without evidence although he claims that noone else has evidence for their side of the story. I'm not saying either side is right/wrong or guilty/not guilty UNTIL proven. But to prove this they have to ask further questions. What you are doing is listening to some fanatic patriotistic defender of this right. He would bend any argument or lie until it fits his side of the story. That's not providing anything im going to preempt his post. he is basing it on this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=46#920 I did read all of the posts. Being the one on the ground holding someone down who tried to put a gun on your head doesn't make you someone who is doing a "preemptive assault" or "beat him in the head when he was already knocked down" You see where this leads to? And in your previous post I see that you already recognize the inconsistence in this guy's posts "didnt he originally say he was attacked right after he got out of his vehicle? that seems inconsistent with the 911 calls and the fact that the confrontation took place after he walked some distance and in someone's yard apparently." There is no evidence yet to suggest that Zimmerman took out his weapon at any point before when he used it. Should all try to keep things factual based with our opinion on those facts. There is also no evidence that Trayvon started the fight, yet lots of people seem to assume this despite the fact it was confirmed he originally decided to flee when he started being chased by someone weighing almost 100lb more than him. Saw a post earlier that said this It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on . I find it absolutely laughable that somebody actually expects a 17 year old kid, being chased by an older male significantly heavier than he is during the dead of the night to just stop and have a conversation with the bloke lol. You would need to have literally no survival instincts if when being pursued by someone older and stronger than you (with a gun) your choice of action is to just stand there and hope the guy wants a conversation. In fact, on the contrary, every evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the fight. Which is what makes the whole self-defense argument ridiculous and insulting. What happened in their "fight" doesn't matter -- it's what or who caused the fight that mattered. And to put it in language that even children can understand and appreciate: Zimmerman started it. Evidence such as recorded testimony from Zimmerman himself that he was following the kid around with a loaded gun, is the only evidence needed to debunk "self-defense" and for the police to do, y'know, some actual work. I think we need to ask ourselves how an adult can claim "self-defense" for shooting a kid that he admittedly followed around, in suspicion, with a gun. Just because Zimmerman lost a fight that he initiated doesn't make for self-defense. And, yes, all evidence suggests Zimmerman initiated that fight. It's such blatant BS. If I follow and approach someone I don't know, across private property, I'm provoking them -- and then if I get my ass kicked (assuming, for no reason, that that is actually what happened here), that doesn't give me the right to then shoot and kill. So even if we're to believe that Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman after Zimmerman chased this kid down -- isn't that Trayvon's right to defend himself? Why are some of us so anxious to assume that "right to defend" goes to the a-hole with the gun and an agenda?
Not sure if you quoted my post because you misinterpreted what I said and think I disagree with you, but just to clarify I agree 100% with everything you said in that post.
On March 23 2012 13:02 NotSorry wrote:
Also what's the deal with all you agreeing that you would instantly start running away from anyone getting out of a truck and walking towards you? My first reaction would be "Hey man, what's up?" not to turn and run away.
Yeah, because at night in what everybody agrees to be a notoriously dangerous area, when you are a 17 year old kid and a large male gets out of a truck and starts pursuing you, we should just assume his intentions are pure, right?
Edit: So many people in this thread are just looking to get their asses kicked if this is how they think you should respond in a situation like this, I strongly suggest you don't go walking at night time with attitudes like this.
|
On March 23 2012 13:05 Zaqwe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2012 12:58 NotSorry wrote:
No evidence of a preemptive assault. There is Zimmerman's testimony that he was attacked. There is also Trayvon's body, which would have had wounds other than the gunshot if he was assaulted.
There is no autopsy report available yet as far as I have seen, so saying Trayvon's body lacks wounds is premature.
|
On March 23 2012 12:16 Anytus wrote:
So, let's ask the question. What do we have as an alternative to Stand Your Ground legislation? I agree that it is ridiculous that two people engaged in a fight could both claim self-defense. I am still not sure that the law as written supports this idea, but I agree that it can't be refuted outright.
As a citizen, I want to know that I can always legally do that thing which gives me the best chance of preserving my life and the lives of those around me. Sometimes, that means running away. Sometimes though, it means standing your ground even when you might be able to get away. I am not willing to tell a citizen "There is like a 30% chance you're gonna get shot if you run, but because you could possibly run you HAVE to try that first before fighting." That kind of stance seems to give criminals impunity as long as they don't attack someone in their home.
How can we write a law that possibly accounts for that?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but SYG laws are a pretty recent occurence. The Florida one was enacted during 2005.
The Miami Police Chief at the time didn't seem to happy with it, since he said "Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house,'' Chief John Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.'' Justifiable homicides per year have tripled since then, starting in '07, but that number was expected to go up if the point of the law was to protect more homicides as justifiable via SYG self-defense.
I don't know what they had before 2005 or why it was replaced, so I can't say if going back to that is the answer. The original intent of SYG was that you could meet force with force, but you couldn't exceed the force being done to you i.e. you couldn't bring a gun to a knife fight, but as this tragic story shows, it is easy for things to escalate out of hand. Some of the other states do require you to try that retreat you don't wish to tell a citizen.
It's a difficult issue to cover. Wielding deadly force is by it's nature dangerous and not something to be taken lightly. It's obviously not something that should be unregulated, hence why police are trained for it, or left to individual discretion (by which I mean the fact that he should have to prove that it was self defense since shooting someone is normally a crime, rather than others having to prove it was not self defense to prosecute). The answer is a complicated one.
Deadly Force is not to be taken lightly. With great power comes great responsibility.
|
On March 23 2012 13:09 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 13:03 Leporello wrote:On March 23 2012 12:49 Ryder. wrote:On March 23 2012 12:32 dp wrote:On March 23 2012 12:30 rouzga wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2012 12:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:21 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 11:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 11:33 rouzga wrote:On March 23 2012 10:17 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 23 2012 10:16 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 10:06 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:51 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 23 2012 09:41 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:39 Fyrewolf wrote:
[quote]
The only people to say they identified the screams are Zimmerman claiming it was him, and Martin's Father claiming it was his son on the tapes. The witness reports don't really say one way or the other yet.
I just stated my opinion that after listening to the call, that it's more plausible to me that the screaming is Martin. Like I said, just an opinion. There are links a few pages back that give witness accounts that say it was zimmerman on the ground. You dont exactly scream for help when your beating someone. You also don't scream for help if you have a gun. The witness reports have been kind of inconsistent, I've seen it be reported both ways so far with both of them on top from different sources. The details of the fight are still unknown, but I personally don't think there was justification for deadly force. If he wanted to use his gun, he could have done a warning shot in the air, or maybe not aim to kill, instead shooting the boy directly in the chest. But as I said, the details are unknown. There's a whole lot of speculation going on in the thread, but we really can't tell what happened yet. Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life. Amazing how you are unwilling to view things from any perspective other than Zimmerman being an inhuman monster who wanted to protect his neighbors because... because he's such an inhuman monster... or something. From reports are inconsistent, details are unknown, details are unknown again, lots of speculation going on in the thread, and we can't tell what happened yet, and from that you conclude that I must automatically despise someone and am not open to any other viewpoints. That's just silly. he made his account just to say whatever he feels like in this thread. he will just troll people all day. + Show Spoiler +Are you sure you want to lose your credibility for someone how just turns other people's word around and states lies as if they were facts?
Just the posts of 2 pages from this guy:
I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing.
I don't see how anything Zimmerman did justified making a preemptive attack on him. Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help makes it even harder to justify.
Trayvon didn't do anything wrong until he decided to knock someone to the ground and pummel them in the head. At that point he stopped being innocent.
I suppose he took the pistol with him just in case he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head while nobody came to his aid.
Unless, of course, you do not want to use the gun and were only carrying it as a last resort to protect your life.
Well at least the media does. They are treating Zimmerman as though he were White for the sake of stirring up racial controversy (and thus ratings), when in reality he is a mixed race Hispanic.
It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on.
I don't understand guys like him, all patriotism aside, who just want to stir things up, and it's bad the mods don't ban him, but defending such a person, who even puts the blame on the DEAD victim without reading what he says is just awful . however misguided he may be. at least he provides support for what he is saying. you dont just ban people who have different opinions from you. Did you read my post? You know that he "provides" this support by just making up lies? "Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on" Does he have any evidence for this? "Continuing to beat him in the head when he was already knocked down and screaming for help" Same here. Etc. He is just constructing his own story around his point of view without evidence although he claims that noone else has evidence for their side of the story. I'm not saying either side is right/wrong or guilty/not guilty UNTIL proven. But to prove this they have to ask further questions. What you are doing is listening to some fanatic patriotistic defender of this right. He would bend any argument or lie until it fits his side of the story. That's not providing anything im going to preempt his post. he is basing it on this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=46#920 I did read all of the posts. Being the one on the ground holding someone down who tried to put a gun on your head doesn't make you someone who is doing a "preemptive assault" or "beat him in the head when he was already knocked down" You see where this leads to? And in your previous post I see that you already recognize the inconsistence in this guy's posts "didnt he originally say he was attacked right after he got out of his vehicle? that seems inconsistent with the 911 calls and the fact that the confrontation took place after he walked some distance and in someone's yard apparently." There is no evidence yet to suggest that Zimmerman took out his weapon at any point before when he used it. Should all try to keep things factual based with our opinion on those facts. There is also no evidence that Trayvon started the fight, yet lots of people seem to assume this despite the fact it was confirmed he originally decided to flee when he started being chased by someone weighing almost 100lb more than him. Saw a post earlier that said this It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on . I find it absolutely laughable that somebody actually expects a 17 year old kid, being chased by an older male significantly heavier than he is during the dead of the night to just stop and have a conversation with the bloke lol. You would need to have literally no survival instincts if when being pursued by someone older and stronger than you (with a gun) your choice of action is to just stand there and hope the guy wants a conversation. In fact, on the contrary, every evidence suggests that Zimmerman started the fight. Which is what makes the whole self-defense argument ridiculous and insulting. What happened in their "fight" doesn't matter -- it's what or who caused the fight that mattered. And to put it in language that even children can understand and appreciate: Zimmerman started it. Evidence such as recorded testimony from Zimmerman himself that he was following the kid around with a loaded gun, is the only evidence needed to debunk "self-defense" and for the police to do, y'know, some actual work. I think we need to ask ourselves how an adult can claim "self-defense" for shooting a kid that he admittedly followed around, in suspicion, with a gun. Just because Zimmerman lost a fight that he initiated doesn't make for self-defense. And, yes, all evidence suggests Zimmerman initiated that fight. It's such blatant BS. If I follow and approach someone I don't know, across private property, I'm provoking them -- and then if I get my ass kicked (assuming, for no reason, that that is actually what happened here), that doesn't give me the right to then shoot and kill. So even if we're to believe that Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman after Zimmerman chased this kid down -- isn't that Trayvon's right to defend himself? Why are some of us so anxious to assume that "right to defend" goes to the a-hole with the gun and an agenda? Not sure if you quoted my post because you misinterpreted what I said and think I disagree with you, but just to clarify I agree 100% with everything you said in that post. Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 13:02 NotSorry wrote:
Also what's the deal with all you agreeing that you would instantly start running away from anyone getting out of a truck and walking towards you? My first reaction would be "Hey man, what's up?" not to turn and run away. Yeah, because at night in what everybody agrees to be a notoriously dangerous area, when you are a 17 year old kid and a large male gets out of a truck and starts pursuing you, we should just assume his intentions are pure, right?
No, I know we agree. Was not meaning to argue with you, just quoting you for truth and ranting a bit.
|
On March 23 2012 13:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
i read the second as saying he was just getting out of his truck and was attacked (i.e., right after his call with the dispatcher), and the first as he went looking for the kid, didnt find him, returned to his car and then was attacked. i dont even care anymore. there are just so many inconsistencies in the news articles.
While I see how it can be read that way, and the reporter probably wants you to make that assumption, it's really just a case of him leaving out a few details.
He's obviously quite biased since he claims the girlfriend's testimony contradicts Zimmerman's story when it certainly does not. Zimmerman says he followed Trayvon, and there's no way to tell who attacks first from phone noises. People don't go "I am attacking you now!", "Oh no, you are attacking me now and I am on the defensive!"
|
On March 23 2012 13:05 Zaqwe wrote:There is Zimmerman's testimony that he was attacked. There is also Trayvon's body, which would have had wounds other than the gunshot if he was assaulted.
Preemptive assault and the two getting into an fight are not the same thing. If I'm walking to my truck and you jump out from behind another car and blind side me that's preemptive assault, if you approach me and I feel threatened and tackle you to the ground then get mount and punch you repeatedly that is not preemptive assault and then at some point during the fight you reach for a gun and shoot me oh wells you're within your right to do so.
A suspect's word is never evidence.
|
On March 23 2012 13:11 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 13:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
i read the second as saying he was just getting out of his truck and was attacked (i.e., right after his call with the dispatcher), and the first as he went looking for the kid, didnt find him, returned to his car and then was attacked. i dont even care anymore. there are just so many inconsistencies in the news articles. While I see how it can be read that way, and the reporter probably wants you to make that assumption, it's really just a case of him leaving out a few details. He's obviously quite biased since he claims the girlfriend's testimony contradicts Zimmerman's story when it certainly does not. Zimmerman says he followed Trayvon, and there's no way to tell who attacks first from phone noises. People don't go "I am attacking you now!", "Oh no, you are attacking me now and I am on the defensive!"
you have obviously never played + Show Spoiler +
|
On March 23 2012 13:11 NotSorry wrote:
A suspect's word is never evidence.
You're wrong there. But it's ok to make shit up in this thread.
|
On March 23 2012 12:57 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:56 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 12:49 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 12:42 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 23 2012 12:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
when i said misguided, i meant i dont agree with him all the time. but at least he is attempting to support his positions with sources. i may not agree with his interpretation of the events, but he is making an attempt to support them. he is not trolling. the majority of the people in this thread have jumped to conclusions without any basis; he arguably is doing the same, but is supporting his views at the very least. when i saw an inconsistency, i responded as such. but again, his only source is the ORIGINAL report of what happened. with people not giving statements to the police. since then multiple other witnesses have contradicted his source. those sources have been posted numerous times throughout the thread, where he only completely ignores them, he is here with a new account (violation of TL rules), solely to start arguments and not to discuss the actual case. in his 40+ posts here he hasn't done anything but egg people on and post the same thing over and over. he is clearly and blatently a troll at worst, and at best in violation of TL policy. I have not seen anything to contradict the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground shouting for help while being struck in the head by Trayvon. That still doesn't mean shit. How does that let you conclude that he started the fight? Because he was winning it? He started it? Maybe the simple act of chasing someone through other peoples backyards at night might provoke them to attack you. It's a gated community with rules & standards
Lol not sure if joking or serious.
I don't actually care who started the fight. What bothers me is what happened after Zimmerman got out of his truck (which nobody really knows except Zimmermand and Tray). To me Zimmerman is guilty for being foolish enough to think it was his job to confront this person, the result, regardless of the intent, was the use of uneccesary force. If Zimmerman happened to be on someones private property it makes it worse. I don't think he has the right to chase people who did nothing wrong on to private property to interrogate them or do whatever it was he was planning.
He was foolish because I don't think he realizes how it could look coming from Tray's POV. Where it really does look like someone is trying to start something (following you in a truck while talking on the phone, then getting out and following you). But just because his intentions were good, doesn't mean it saves him from the result. He knew he was going into a dangerous situation, and if he had to grab the gun from somewhere in his vehicle, he is admitting he knew it was dangerous. Which would mean he was breaking the law by confronting someone he thought could cause bodily harm (negligence). He litterally put himself in a situation where his gun would have to be used for his own safety.
If they find that he broke some laws immediatley before the accident (guncontrol, trespassing, whatever) I'm pretty sure he won't be able to claim self defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
