|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
Here is the provision of the self defense instructions relating to when the defendant is initially the agressor:
However, the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily
harm is not justifiable if you find:
...
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself]
[herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that
[he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had
exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger,
other than using deadly force likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact
with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he]
[she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force
likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant)
continued or resumed the use of force.
thus, under Florida law, even if you are the initial aggressor (e.g., chasing the kid), you can still claim self defense under these circumstances.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:25 cristo1122 wrote:
so let me get this straight if u an individual get into an argument with someone then they can just draw a gun and shoot someone thats so stupid, if u think that you may be in danger then u move away and aviod said danger or remove urself from danger (excepting situations where someone suddnely pulls a knife on u out of no where or something similar). Then if the person follows, or trails u then u have the right to defend yourself as you have tried to aviod a situation that would have required force. (regarding force sometimes therre dosent need to be intend to do lethal harm it maybe just done in self defense as was the case recently in sydney where to guys had an argument one walked away while the other followed while be abusive and then placed his hand on the 1st persons shoulder upon which that individual turned around and struck him once in the head causing death)
It generally requires that you be under attack or immediate attack. Simply being in an argument would not suffice.
|
I can't believe this is even being defended... If it was going to court, awesome I would defend him, innocent untill proven guilty through TRIAL, the issue is he hasn't even served a day in jail, just goes "hey it was self defense" and the cops reply "oh shit so he was black, and you are white, free to go have a nice day"
|
On March 22 2012 10:27 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:25 cristo1122 wrote:
so let me get this straight if u an individual get into an argument with someone then they can just draw a gun and shoot someone thats so stupid, if u think that you may be in danger then u move away and aviod said danger or remove urself from danger (excepting situations where someone suddnely pulls a knife on u out of no where or something similar). Then if the person follows, or trails u then u have the right to defend yourself as you have tried to aviod a situation that would have required force. (regarding force sometimes therre dosent need to be intend to do lethal harm it maybe just done in self defense as was the case recently in sydney where to guys had an argument one walked away while the other followed while be abusive and then placed his hand on the 1st persons shoulder upon which that individual turned around and struck him once in the head causing death) It generally requires that you be under attack or immediate attack. Simply being in an argument would not suffice.
Yes it would. If you thought you were about to be physically harmed its perfectly justifiable.
|
On March 22 2012 10:24 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence. Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say.
we are discussing it. you say he is guilty. i say he is likely guilty, but i want to understand his side of the story first. i dont know why people are at my throat for wanting to wait. its like "join the fucking lynch mob, or we will lynch you."
|
On March 22 2012 10:26 Fyrewolf wrote:
Really? The guy admitted to the shooting an unarmed kid. Which is normally a crime. He should have to present evidence that it was self-defense, instead of needing evidence against it to prosecute him. If he commits what is normally a crime(murder), and can't prove it was justified(self-defense), he committed a crime. That's how any other crimes work, if you are in possession of something illegal(for ease, let's say prescription pills), and you can't prove it's justified(it's your prescription), you get charged with a crime. The law can be really fucked up sometimes...
If they every get around to charging him, this is exactly what will happen. He's asserting an affirmative defense (at least informally, and likely would at trial). This means that he actually does have to prove his innocence.
|
On March 22 2012 10:24 nennx wrote:Self defense laws at their finest Hopefully this incident will help our state governments rethink the laws they've put in recently. Show nested quote +Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder. So its not murder when you pick a fight with someone then shoot them to death? How is that any different than shooting someone to death?
Because we can't really prove what went down, who hit who first, etc. Maybe Zimmerman went up to him and said "what are you doing in my neighborhood, nigger?" and then Martin came at him. When I say "picked a fight" I don't mean he went up to him and started swinging his fists. Martin was also suspended from school at the time of the fight, and his parents refuse to say what he was suspended for. Maybe fighting?
|
On March 22 2012 10:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
I can't believe this is even being defended... If it was going to court, awesome I would defend him, innocent untill proven guilty through TRIAL, the issue is he hasn't even served a day in jail, just goes "hey it was self defense" and the cops reply "oh shit so he was black, and you are white, free to go have a nice day"
Completely unrelated to race, its 100% because of the law. If the cops don't think theres evidence to take it to court because he didn't break any laws, then they don't charge him, its that simple.
These cases have been happening around the nation for several years, this has only gotten attention because of the absurdity of the case.
|
Wait, why are so many people saying that Zimmerman murdered Martin? Of course he killed him, but there is absolutely no objective proof that means that Zimmerman killed him in anything but self defense.
Just because Zimmerman killed Martin, does NOT mean that he is guilty of murder. According to the law of the state (which may or may not be the best law for this situation, and might need changing) Zimmerman can't really be convicted.
Now, I do realize there is a ton of very pointing evidence that puts Zimmerman in a very odd light; his tone and word choice during his conversation with the police officer certainly suggest that he had a very criminal, apparently racist intent, but that doesn't prove anything.
Also, you cannot account for the slight possibility that there was some sort of third man who actually committed the crime, and Zimmerman is covering for him (for whatever reason; which would actually be a crime for Zimmerman, but not a murder). Though I do agree that Zimmerman is the obvious choice for the killer.
|
This is the true face of injustice, not just Trayvon Martin's fate, but that of all these FL victims of "justifiable homicide."
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:24 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence. Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say. we are discussing it. you say he is guilty. i say he is likely guilty, but i want to understand his side of the story first. i dont know why people are at my throat for wanting to wait. its like "join the fucking lynch mob, or we will lynch you."
Then I guess this whole thing is an argument over semantics.
Given the current evidence, most people think he's guilty. If new evidence comes out, reasonable people will change their opinion. No one is saying throw him in jail and call him guilty without a trial, we just want to justice process to begin on a case that seems obviously legit.
|
On March 22 2012 10:26 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder. Witnesses disagree. At least one woman told police that she heard Martin screaming for help, and the police told her she was wrong...
If you listen to the 911 calls you will see that the witnesses were pretty useless. Even as they were on the phone with 911 and watching it go down none of them could give a good story at who was screaming what.
|
On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
[quote]
That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide.
Question:
dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay?
|
On March 22 2012 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:24 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence. Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say. we are discussing it. you say he is guilty. i say he is likely guilty, but i want to understand his side of the story first. i dont know why people are at my throat for wanting to wait. its like "join the fucking lynch mob, or we will lynch you."
Because your opinion is wrong [/sarcasm]. If more information is released I will update my opinion to account for evidence that has been released. At this venture, it is clear to me that he is guilty, and I can see no feasible means to prove otherwise besides a bullshit interpretation of the law.
Holding an unpopular opinion tends to do that though.
On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay?
With no charges brought forth this is irrelevant, but I believe it is true.
|
On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay?
no.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 22 2012 09:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. You can't be given self defense when you're the person who initiated the conflict. That means I could commit armed robbery and kill anybody who tried to stop me in self defense. thats correct. but if the kid turned around and took a swing at him with a bat (or whatever the rent-a-cop's story is) then there could be a basis for self defense. look, im not saying this guy has a good self-defense argument. i am just saying people are jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence. that scares the shit out of me given people's tendencies to jump on bandwagons. it fucked up the Duke lacrosse player's lives unnecessarily. That isn't self defense though. If you chase somebody down with a loaded handgun and he tries to defend himself with a bat and you shoot him to kill then you're still guilty of murder. If I attack you, I don't become the defender if you attack me back. chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
chasing alone doesnt make you an aggressor in my book whether you have a handgun or not. otherwise police would have a hell of a time arguing self defense during a police chase. it sure doesnt help for a self defense argument, but it certainly doesnt automatically negate the defense like some people are arguing. Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay?
Before the court, not the public. The court process hasn't started yet.
|
On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt.
And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business.
People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people.
|
On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence.
It's rational to make judgments based on the available evidence. If a new video (or any other evidence) comes out that clearly indicates Martin posed a grave threat to Zimmerman, I, and I suspect most people here, will change their opinion. It doesn't make me irrational for thinking Zimmerman is guilty of murder. I am simply making a rational judgment based on the available evidence, which is what rational people do when they behave rationally. The concept of "all the evidence" is completely ludicrous. You will never have "all the evidence" to judge anything ever. Are you also agnostic about whether or not the moon exists, or whether or not the sun rises, or whether or not Paris is the capital of France? I mean you don't have "all the evidence", how could you possibly make a judgment!
|
On March 22 2012 10:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:47 dp wrote:
[quote]
He is not a cop. That argument is pointless. And when a police officer chases someone, I am sure they have to identify themselves. I have no reason to stop for some random person chasing me with a guy. On March 22 2012 09:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
[quote]
Except they're THE POLICE and this guy is SOME RANDOM GUY. You're missing critical points here. And it is obvious that he chased Trayvon down and started an altercation. How he is not the aggressor in this case should be up to Zimmerman to prove, as it is quite apparent to everyone in this thread that he is. And if he is, it's all his fault. In fact, it's all his fault for chasing in the first place, even if he didn't start the altercation, but not to the degree of murder. self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay? no.
even if the individual has been formally charged and a trial date has been set?
|
On March 22 2012 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:24 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:
[quote]
A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence. Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say. we are discussing it. you say he is guilty. i say he is likely guilty, but i want to understand his side of the story first. i dont know why people are at my throat for wanting to wait. its like "join the fucking lynch mob, or we will lynch you."
This isn't much of a lynch mob. The tapes that have been recently released should have been enough to get this guy a big court date. You want his side of the story? He gave it in the 911 call. For the rest, do you think he would actually be inclined to be honest about what exactly happened? No why would he, he is currently defended by an obscene law.
It goes beyond the murder of wanting this looked at. The witness was coaxed to try and say something else. His cellphone went missing. None of that seems a bit unusual to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
