| Forum Index > Closed |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:53 Kickboxer wrote: You people are still responding to this guy? ^_^ he's blatantly trolling i've reported him and the account (which is in violation of TL forum rules) but nothing has been done. | ||
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/os-trayvon-martin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story As national controversy swirls around the shooting of an unarmed teenager in Sanford, the city's police responded Thursday to a recent report which raised questions about their investigation. Mary Cutcher, a witnesses to the shooting, told WFTV-Channel 9 in a Wednesday report that police took only a short statement from her, despite repeated attempts to share what she saw at length. "I said, 'I know this was not self-defense. There was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling,'" Cutcher said, adding that she felt the police investigating the shooting "blew us off." So you have a guy with a known history of animus towards black youths, a recording of him spouting a racial slur before ignoring a police dispatcher to chase down this kid, "something" happens and Zimmerman shoots him, the police show up and he lies about his motives for getting out of the truck and at least one witness says outright it wasn't self-defense, and the cops take him at his word and not only don't arrest him, but decide that they're only going to check Trayvon's dead body for alcohol and not Zimmerman. Nope, no racism here, no sirreee. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:58 awesomoecalypse wrote: There's another witness who says the story that Trayvon was the aggressor doesn't line up http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/os-trayvon-martin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story So you have a guy with a known history of animus towards black youths, a recording of him spouting a racial slur before ignoring a police dispatcher to chase down this kid, "something" happens and Zimmerman shoots him, the police show up and he lies about his motives for getting out of the truck and at least one witness says outright it wasn't self-defense, and the cops take him at his word and not only don't arrest him, but decide that they're only going to check Trayvon's dead body for alcohol and not Zimmerman. Nope, no racism here, no sirreee. but that contradicts the month old source that zaqwe is using. there must be no new evidence!!!!! | ||
|
BillClinton
232 Posts
Even if Martin was a dealer how can you argue it was good that he was killed, it will lead to more mutual suspicion and lower the inhibition level for aggression/crime. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:58 awesomoecalypse wrote: There's another witness who says the story that Trayvon was the aggressor doesn't line up http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/os-trayvon-martin-witness-tv-report-20120315,0,559932.story So you have a guy with a known history of animus towards black youths, a recording of him spouting a racial slur before ignoring a police dispatcher to chase down this kid, "something" happens and Zimmerman shoots him, the police show up and he lies about his motives for getting out of the truck and at least one witness says outright it wasn't self-defense, and the cops take him at his word and not only don't arrest him, but decide that they're only going to check Trayvon's dead body for alcohol and not Zimmerman. Nope, no racism here, no sirreee. That's the same "witness" posted earlier who did not see what happened before the shooting. Here is a witness who did: 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." http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:01 BillClinton wrote: Do you really want to live in a place where whenever you feel threatened for whatever reason you (and others) pull your gun(s)? Even if Martin was a dealer how can you argue it was good that he was killed, it will lead to more mutual suspicion and lower the inhibition level for aggression/crime. Do you really want to live in a place where if you are pinned on the ground being beaten in the head you are not allowed to use a firearm to save your life? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
if you are ignoring some testimony to prove your point then maybe your point is not all that great. for all sides. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote: seriously, you guys. there is conflicting eyewitness testimony. saying one is true and the other is not is not going to lead anywhere productive. if you have to disregard some evidence to support your views, maybe you should consider that your opinion isnt 100% absolutely correct. the problem is most of you say zimmerman is absolutely guilty (which may be true), but there is conflicting testimony on that account; zaqwe (and a few others who post less) are saying there is evidence showing it was self defense (which may be true) but there is also conflicting testimony on that account. if you are ignoring some testimony to prove your point then maybe your point is not all that great. for all sides. my view is that the police absolutely 100% mishandled the investigation, whether or not there was an arrest much more information should have been gathered, and that's the only reason there is a debate in the first place. zaqwe is just deflecting any argument contrary to him and ignoring any evidence besides what he wants to say, it's best if everyone just doesn't respond to him. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:10 awesomoecalypse wrote: You can't instigate a conflict, then when the other person fights back, pull out a gun and shoot them and claim self defense. For Zimmerman to reasonably claim self defense, he has to show he was reasonably trying to avoid injury (and not in the sense of "i punched this guy so he punched me back so I shot him for punching me), and every piece of evidence--the phone call with Trayvon's girlfriend, Zimmerman's own history of racism, his insistence on following Trayvon despite the 911 dispatcher's warning not to--suggests that Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigator of this conflict. im just going to give you the jury instructions, which states Florida law, and hope beyond hope that you will educate yourself. the self defense law starts on page 62. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:04 Zaqwe wrote: Do you really want to live in a place where if you are pinned on the ground being beaten in the head you are not allowed to use a firearm to save your life? Of course you should be allowed to use the amount of violence needed to defend yourself if someone is trying to kill you. The problem is that you can't use that violence until someone actually tries to kill you. Most full grown males have the potential to kill someone with their hands, do you really think people should be allowed to shot down whoever they want just to be on the safe side? | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote: seriously, you guys. there is conflicting eyewitness testimony. saying one is true and the other is not is not going to lead anywhere productive. if you have to disregard some evidence to support your views, maybe you should consider that your opinion isnt 100% absolutely correct. the problem is most of you say zimmerman is absolutely guilty (which may be true), but there is conflicting testimony on that account; zaqwe (and a few others who post less) are saying there is evidence showing it was self defense (which may be true) but there is also conflicting testimony on that account. if you are ignoring some testimony to prove your point then maybe your point is not all that great. for all sides. The thing is the only people ignoring testimony are the ones who insist Zimmerman is guilty. I am not ignoring Mary Cutcher's testimony. She has said she did not see anything that happened before the shooting. What she did see after the shooting is 100% consistent with the eyewitness to the beating and Zimmerman's story. Just because she says things like she "believes in he heart" it wasn't self defense is irrelevant. She feels that way because she has been influenced by the media. What she saw is all that matters, not what her feelings are after reading a bunch of biased hack job articles. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
seriously, you guys. there is conflicting eyewitness testimony. saying one is true and the other is not is not going to lead anywhere productive. if you have to disregard some evidence to support your views, maybe you should consider that your opinion isnt 100% absolutely correct. the problem is most of you say zimmerman is absolutely guilty (which may be true), but there is conflicting testimony on that account; zaqwe (and a few others who post less) are saying there is evidence showing it was self defense (which may be true) but there is also conflicting testimony on that account. if you are ignoring some testimony to prove your point then maybe your point is not all that great. for all sides. Hmmm...it's too bad there's no mechanism in our culture for sorting out evidence and eyewitness testimony to determine guilt or lack thereof. I mean, in a magical fantasy land, perhaps we could create some kind of system whereby someone stands before a jury of their peers and a judge, with lawyers representing each side, and sort this out. Nope, there's no way we could never do anything like that. Clearly, the cops had to take the step of taking everything Zimmerman said at face value, not testing him for drug or alcohol even though they tested Trayvon, declaring Zimmerman innocent on the spot, and then not even bothering to notify Trayvon's parents their son had died. Clearly. And just as clearly, they would totally have behaved the same way if that was a black man who ignored a 911 dispatcher, said "fucking cracker", and was moments later found over the body of a dead white kid holding a smoking gun. Clearly. | ||
|
phoenix`down
49 Posts
He has apparently called 911 numerous times over the years to report suspicious behavior, and even held someone he found committing a crime so the police could make an arrest. If this was fueled by racial hatred I don't know why the other 46 times didn't turn into similar situations. I feel like it makes more sense if he was hoping to hold Trayvor until the police arrived and things just turned bad. (I agree with pretty much everyone that this should be investigated further, but I think that painting Zimmerman as a hateful, murderous, bigot is a little premature.) | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:53 Zaqwe wrote: That "witness" did not see anything that happened before the gunshot. This one did: As you can see Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman giving him a savage beating, he got shot and falls to the ground, and Zimmerman then gets up. What your favoured "witness" saw after the shooting is completely consistent with Zimmerman's story and the eyewitness who saw Zimmerman being beaten. You're way off base. Numerous witnesses have stated that the voice they heard crying for help was clearly that of a boy and not a man, while the only witness to testify otherwise was the one you've repeatedly referenced. Furthermore, several witnesses who were interviewed by police said that the police pressured them to change their story to say that Zimmerman was the one crying for help. Your assertion that Trayvon Martin being a football player makes it more likely that he would win a fight against Zimmerman is absurd; look at the actual facts of their builds. Zimmerman outweighed Martin by a significant amount, and at 28 years old, his body was significantly more developed than the 17 year old Martin. Your assertion that Martin picked the fight because if he had chosen to run he would've gotten away, is also nonsense. Zimmerman (A) had been following Martin from a car, and (B) Martin had no reason to run, he was walking in a gated community where his father's girlfriend lived. Furthermore, very often, African-American parents tell their children not to run in suspicious circumstances, because it is always treated as a sign of guilt. Martin, in not fleeing Zimmerman, may have been trying to address the situation with words. Moreover, your assertion that Martin picked the fight, in general is the most gaping whole in your entire argument. Zimmerman stepped out of his car to pursue Martin. This is not in dispute. In stepping out of his car and engaging in pursuit, something which he was explicitly warned to not do, Zimmerman was the aggressor in this situation. He was armed with both a gun and a car, he had all the power. If the two actually did fight, you could make the most compelling argument that Martin had a right to self-defense, after all, he had just been stalked by a man he did not know, who then came out of his car and pursued him. That seems to be a significantly more compelling rational for self-defense than the story of man who chased after a boy carrying only a bag of skittles and an ice tea saying he needed to shoot the kid when there was a confrontation. Florida law does not protect you if you initiate the confrontation, and most state laws, including Florida's (although Florida gives you the benefit of the doubt, which is new) explain that the use of force in retaliation must be proportional. You cannot use deadly force unless you have reason to fear for your life, limbs, or vital organs (like your eyes). A property owner chasing a thief cannot use deadly force if the thief is running away. A man getting his ass kicked in a bar cannot use deadly force unless he has reason to believe that he's not just getting his ass kicked, but there is the potential that he may die. You have made eighty five posts in this topic arguing an extremely narrow and indefensible view based on your absolute certitude of the correctness of a single eyewitness, when there are multiple eyewitnesses who offer competing testimony and there is evidence of police coercion. Secondly, your version of events, even if it were valid, is still not defensible under Florida law, and common sense. I'd call you a troll, but your dedication here surpasses any reasonable troll. Thus, I have to conclude that you are either the president of the NRA, or the actual witness you consistently quote. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
He has apparently called 911 numerous times over the years to report suspicious behavior Yeah, suspicious behavior like "being black". http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/23/george_zimmerman_s_long_lonely_war_against_black_youths_doing_things.html and even held someone he found committing a crime so the police could make an arrest Yeah, nothing about that makes me think "wannabe vigilante', no sirree.s | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
He's a lawyer man, you don't need to pretend he doesn't know about the legal system to make your point. | ||
|
CaptainFwiffo
United States576 Posts
Also, how is it that that Trayvon was laying on the slab for three days, and the police had made the effort to run a tox screen on the body, but couldn't be bothered to look at his cell phone in an effort to find next of kin? Three days? It would have taken three seconds to look at the phone. They could have done it on the scene. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:14 Batch wrote: Of course you should be allowed to use the amount of violence needed to defend yourself if someone is trying to kill you. The problem is that you can't use that violence until someone actually tries to kill you. Most full grown males have the potential to kill someone with their hands, do you really think people should be allowed to shot down whoever they want just to be on the safe side? No, but if that person has you pinned to the ground and is striking you in the head while you scream for help, nobody comes to help you, and the man beating you shows no signs of stopping, then I think it is fair to use a firearm. Apparently Florida law agrees at the moment. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 24 2012 05:04 Zaqwe wrote: Do you really want to live in a place where if you are pinned on the ground being beaten in the head you are not allowed to use a firearm to save your life? You got it backwards, Zaqwe. Do you really want to live in a place where someone can follow you, pull a gun on you, and you're not allowed to attack in order to save your life? Despite some ambiguity, it's very, very clear that Zimmerman was a greater threat to Trayvon than the other way around. Trayon posed absolutely no threat until Zimmerman created a confrontation while armed. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
BSL: GosuLeague
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Road to EWC
Replay Cast
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
