EPTOn March 29 2012 12:32 nalgene wrote:
By any chance you can link the unaltered one?
By any chance you can link the unaltered one?
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
its under trayvon investigation.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html its under trayvon investigation. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
First thing for me is that im always susspicious towards people just sitting in the car with the purpose to "protect" the surrounding. If those people are bored it might happen that they want to control people just becouse of boredome, and that might lead to unjustified actings like happened in this case. If you carry a gun and then start to follow strangers you are already escalating the situation in my eyes, when there is no wittness you COULD shoot anyone and claim it was self defence. Just becouse of that its very dangerous not to investigate hardly here. (Even when he screams for help before... He COULD have just done it to justify his shot) Im pointing this out, not to claim it happend that way, its just one possibility where this could be a clear murder and now he might go free. Finally the reaction of the police really bugs me. Are they just biased towards people trying to protect the neigbourhood (like not investigating if they mess up)? Or are they biased toward shooting poor or black people (like not investigating if "unimportand" people get shot)? For me the scenario seems to be like this and please correct me if im clearly wrong (this is pure thory and might be totally invalid i just wanna know if anything is proven otherwise till now) "A guy sitting in his car searching for criminals or susspicious people, he has nothing to do, a black teenager comes along. He is walking slowly and maybe looks around a bit. For Zimmerman this is suspicious so he calls the cops. They say to not follow him but he does anyway taking his gun with him, Following the guy pumping him full of adrinaline he thinks about how to stop him till police arrives coming up with the plan to stop him and tell him he is suspected to be a criminal and he should wait till police arrives, trayvon feels unjustified treatend and says he wont wait for police, zimmerman try to keep travor in place, trayvon trys to free himself doesnt know how else to help himself that to throw a punsh at zimmerman, Zimmerman now flushed with adrinaline comes into a handfight but has still always the option to draw his gun, trayvon full of adrinaline as well wins the handfight pushing zimmerman down on the street and being at rage throws some additional punshes, Zimmerman screams for help thinking this is a criminal he cought, no one help, zimmerman draws his weapon and shoots without additional warning." Sorry to make a full theory story up, but still i dont read anything else then this, and this is what my brain construct out of this. I dont say this happend but still for me this could be the story behind it and then everyone would be right. And still it would be unjustified that a person is dead at the end of the day. | ||
|
Charger
United States2405 Posts
This is an extremely complicated situation (obviously) and the media frenzy is nauseating. There has been very little responsible journalism on the part of the media in general. This shouldn't surprise anyone I guess, the first story of Zimmerman being a racist and murdering a young innocent black man is much better for business. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
First thing for me is that im always susspicious towards people just sitting in the car with the purpose to "protect" the surrounding. If those people are bored it might happen that they want to control people just becouse of boredome, and that might lead to unjustified actings like happened in this case. What about cops? I don't think there's anything suspicious about sitting in your car. Who knows what this guy was doing, but I certainly am not going to buy the pushed line hook line and sinker that he was some crazy gun toting nutjob just sitting in his car doing nothing. He's had some training, and for all we know maybe he just sits in his car, to get out of the house, and was watching TV on his phone. Who knows what is the real characterization, but I wouldn't trust the media portrayal or witnesses on it. If you carry a gun and then start to follow strangers you are already escalating the situation in my eyes, when there is no wittness you COULD shoot anyone and claim it was self defence. Just becouse of that its very dangerous not to investigate hardly here. (Even when he screams for help before... He COULD have just done it to justify his shot) I don't think so... First off, we already see there are plenty of witnesses, or people watching out, as it is. Carrying a gun is not the issue here. He was watching for someone was that was suspicious, and he's already stopped one burglary in his neighborhood. So ignore the gun, it's not the issue. The question is, should he have followed this kid? Because even without a gun, an altercation can happen, and the other guy can trip and fall and break his head open on the sidewalk. Are they just biased towards people trying to protect the neigbourhood (like not investigating if they mess up)? Or are they biased toward shooting poor or black people (like not investigating if "unimportand" people get shot)? Police always arrest someone for shooting someone, even if it's just temporary or the case is going to get thrown out immediately. The fact they didn't shows that there are probably facts we aren't aware of (or every single person involved, the investigator, DA, multiple cops who showed up to the scene, the sergeant, the lieutenant, the operator, et cetera, is some biased, racist, clearly and uniformally mal-intentioned person with the exact same agenda, which is hardly likely). If a case involves a minor, police don't release details of the case, and for good reason. Now, because of the media shitstorm going on, this kid's life and his parent's life are going to be around forever. Now I know the kid is dead, but had he been alive, you think he'd ever be able to get a job anywhere once everyone in the world realized he did drugs or got in trouble, just the same as any other kid (but is generally kept secret)? No. It would have ruined his life. At least with adults, you can argue it's a conscious and intentional decision they made, but with kids, they don't know what they are doing (maybe 16, 17, but if you want to argue about what constitutes an adult, that's another subject). Cops sit around just waiting for suspicious people too. If the guy wasn't a problem, he would have just been approached by zimmerman, and then nothing would have happened. Witnesses are extremely unreliable, but the police got there before zimmerman could cut himself up to make it look like self defense, and none of them are saying he shot the kid in cold blood, that's for sure. And it's not like zimmerman followed the kid against the operator's advice - he saw the kid, reported it, the operator said you shouldn't follow, and then, according to details of the case, the kid approached zimmerman. Now, did that really happen? Maybe Zimmerman did continue to follow, and maybe the kid approached zimmerman. That's for a court to decide, and none of us to be qualified to know. But that would be really the meat of the case, right there. There is no record of zimmerman just talking to the kid and saying he's going to call the copson him, like you say... Even if the events go as you describe, zimmerman would be okay to defend himself against someone who is beating him while he's on the ground. If zimmerman had, say, shot the body 10 times after he was on the ground, that would be pretty murderous. But if he just shot a few shots to push the guy back, that's fine. The kid could have definitely run, or just got him toe the ground and left (even if what happened was that he was defending himself). Why are you making up theories? There are facts to this case, most of it unknown to the public. At the end of the day, if zimmerman was assaulted by this kid without clear and aggressive provocation (and being followed is not provocation), then he has every right to defend himself by legal means, which in florida, includes guns. The idea that anything wrong happened, if that is what happened, seems ludicrous to me - he could have died if zimerman puleld a tazer, a knife, or just pushed the guy and the kid falling on his head. Too many people making this a gun issue. It's not about the gun. It's about whether Zimmerman assaulted the kid first or not. That's all. You can't go to jail for being a paranoid nutjob (and on the same token, you shouldn't be killed because you refuse to wait for police after a civil arrest). Of course even if the story of self defense is truthful, it could be argued that Zimmerman escalated the situation by disobeying police and following Trayvon. According to witnesses and zimmerna, he didn't follow trayvon, and it would not constitute assault if zimmerman did follow trayvon (ie, it is not illegal to follow someone, even if an operator advises you shouldn't). Even if zimmerman followed trayvon, after the operator said don't, that is not illegal by any means. And zimmerman could argue in court he was walking that direction because of a million other reasons, or whatever. So if you follow someone for 2 minutes, that's a basis for murder, or a crime? Did Trayvon assault Zimmerman first, yes or no? That's it. Trayvon smoking pot, zimmerman following trayvon even after the operator saying not to, zimmerman being an overzealous, racist, wanna-be cop, are all IRRELEVANT. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
On March 29 2012 12:57 Charger wrote: I think that theory is certainly viable. Of course, the story Zimmerman told police (and at least partially backed up by witnesses) is also viable. It's just as likely that Trayvon escalated the incident and he attacked Zimmerman, slammed his head on the curb, and maybe reached for Zimmerman's gun (read that somewhere, didn't see that in the OP though). Of course even if the story of self defense is truthful, it could be argued that Zimmerman escalated the situation by disobeying police and following Trayvon. This is an extremely complicated situation (obviously) and the media frenzy is nauseating. There has been very little responsible journalism on the part of the media in general. This shouldn't surprise anyone I guess, the first story of Zimmerman being a racist and murdering a young innocent black man is much better for business. Yeah but also Trayvor has the right to go his way. I dont thing Zimmerman would have any right to hold the kid in place at any given time. So Trayvon would have the right to free himself even with the use of force. Teh only case where zimmerman would be absolutely right if he ONLY followed the kid saying nothing to him and they didnt changed a word before Trayvon just attacked zimmerman without any reason, wich would be very unlikely. The point is you cant just walk around and keep people in place by any means if you are not the police. In my scenario Zimmerman would still be guilty of grossly negligent killing (german law would put it like this) It would be 4-12 years in germany i believe. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Yeah but also Trayvor has the right to go his way. I dont thing Zimmerman would have any right to hold the kid in place at any given time. So Trayvon would have the right to free himself even with the use of force Trayvon does not have the right to 'free' himself with the use of force if someone just says 'stay here'. Now if zimmerman 'assaulted' trayvon by holding him, then yea, he has the right to fight back. Which is what the case is all about. Apparently the police (excluding the investigator) think that zimmerman did not forcibly restrain trayvon, and that trayvon assaulted zimmerman. Teh only case where zimmerman would be absolutely right if he ONLY followed the kid saying nothing to him and they didnt changed a word before Trayvon just attacked zimmerman without any reason, wich would be very unlikely. Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to trayvon. He could have went up to trayvon and said "your mother is a whore". If trayvon assaulted him first, no matter what words were exchanged, zimmerman would have been okay to defend himself using any means necessary, including the use of a deadly force, such as pushing the kid hard enough that he may fall and crack his head, a knife, tazer, or gun. I mean really, if trayvon assaulted zimmerman first, no matter what words zimmerman said, then thank god he had the gun. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
No. It would have ruined his life. At least with adults, you can argue it's a conscious and intentional decision they made, but with kids, they don't know what they are doing (maybe 16, 17, but if you want to argue about what constitutes an adult, that's another subject). So your argument is even if he would not have died revealing his drug related past would have ruined his life anyway so he is not worth at much as another person without this issues? I dont get your argumenting here. Cops sit around just waiting for suspicious people too. Yeah thats fine becouse they are cops. And it's not like zimmerman followed the kid against the operator's advice - he saw the kid, reported it, the operator said you shouldn't follow, and then, according to details of the case, the kid approached zimmerman. Now, did that really happen? Maybe Zimmerman did continue to follow, and maybe the kid approached zimmerman. That's for a court to decide, and none of us to be qualified to know. But that would be really the meat of the case, right there. Yeah but he did already before leaving the car. Even if the events go as you describe, zimmerman would be okay to defend himself against someone who is beating him while he's on the ground. If zimmerman had, say, shot the body 10 times after he was on the ground, that would be pretty murderous. But if he just shot a few shots to push the guy back, that's fine. The kid could have definitely run, or just got him toe the ground and left (even if what happened was that he was defending himself). Well but also the kid would be alright to try to get out of there since he didnt comitted a crime and zimmerman is not an cop he is free to go. At the end of the day, if zimmerman was assaulted by this kid without clear and aggressive provocation (and being followed is not provocation), then he has every right to defend himself by legal means, which in florida, includes guns. The idea that anything wrong happened, if that is what happened, seems ludicrous to me - he could have died if zimerman puleld a tazer, a knife, or just pushed the guy and the kid falling on his head. Are you accusing me to be agains weapons overall becouse thats not the case my opinion would be the same with a taser a knive or trayvon falling on his head. Too many people making this a gun issue. It's not about the gun. It's about whether Zimmerman assaulted the kid first or not. That's all. You can't go to jail for being a paranoid nutjob (and on the same token, you shouldn't be killed because you refuse to wait for police after a civil arrest). No its not an gun issue for me. You accusing me wrong here. According to witnesses and zimmerna, he didn't follow trayvon, and it would not constitute assault if zimmerman did follow trayvon (ie, it is not illegal to follow someone, even if an operator advises you shouldn't). Even if zimmerman followed trayvon, after the operator said don't, that is not illegal by any means. And zimmerman could argue in court he was walking that direction because of a million other reasons, or whatever. So if you follow someone for 2 minutes, that's a basis for murder, or a crime? Did Trayvon assault Zimmerman first, yes or no? That's it. Trayvon smoking pot, zimmerman following trayvon even after the operator saying not to, zimmerman being an overzealous, racist, wanna-be cop, are all IRRELEVANT. No becouse he changes the situation significantly and puts the life of trayvon at risk. | ||
|
Goobus
Hong Kong587 Posts
Assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear violence. Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the fear of such contact. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
So your argument is even if he would not have died revealing his drug related past would have ruined his life anyway so he is not worth at much as another person without this issues? I dont get your argumenting here. I'm saying, that the kid involved in this case is a minor, so the media and the general public should have kept out of the whole situation, so that some scumbag cop wouldn't be bribed into revealing the details of the case and the details of this kid's private information. But really, it's not so much the media and public's fault, as it is the scumbag who released his private information. If he was an adult, he's fair game, but it's not fair to release information on a minor. So he smoked pot, he's not really responsible for that, he's a minor (i mean we punish minors, so he's somewhat responsible, but as a minor, he's not as... how to say, responsible, i guess. I know 17 is pushing the limit of 'what's an adult?' but according the US legal definition, 17 is still a minor). And for good reason, information about minors is kept private. Yeah thats fine becouse they are cops. Cops are just people who carry around guns, you have to realize they aren't any different from people too. Now I get this guy maybe wasn't as qualified as a cop (even though he had some police training). Just saying it wasn't weird that someone wants to protect their neighborhood, and you don't know the real characterization of this guy. I wouldn't buy the media explanation though. Yeah but he did already before leaving the car. You are assuming he did, who knows if he really did follow the guy. And, he did not follow the kid after the operator told him not to (or, at worst, we don't know if he continued to). Well but also the kid would be alright to try to get out of there since he didnt comitted a crime and zimmerman is not an cop he is free to go. Zimmerman did not restrain the kid, there is nothing the kid would have had to do except walk away. If Zimmerman DID restrain the kid, then you have a murder case on your hands. Which is the whole meat and bones of what the fuck is going on, but zimmerman says he didn't, witnesses said he didn't. Now, just like the media, witnesses are unreliable as fuck, but there is a lot we as the general public aren't aware of, and the police and DA's office seems pretty damn sure that the guy did not restrain the kid against his will. No one here knows what happened. Only Zimmerman knows what happened. Witnesses may know, but they are unreliable as fuck. So all you are doing is speculating, because the real question is, who assaulted who first, but the evidence we know of, like Zimmerman being bloodied up, and (unreliable) witness testimony, seems to imply that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman first. o its not an gun issue for me. You accusing me wrong here. I wasn't responding to you in regards to 'too many people make this a gun issue" No becouse he changes the situation significantly and puts the life of trayvon at risk. It is life-threatening to follow someone? That is absolutely ridiculous. No it's not. There is nothing wrong with following someone. It does not put trayvon at risk, and you have no right to assault someone just because they are following you. I think you guys are mistaking "assault" with "battery". Assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear violence. Assault is generally used to describe violence, we aren't speaking a court of law here. But, I am definitely using the term assault as it is legally - to threaten violence by word or actions. If Zimmerman said "im going to beat the fuck out of you", that's grounds for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman. If Zimmerman said "im calling the cops on you, you suspicious, high, nigger, and you are going to stay here, because I am detaining you", that is not assault. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On March 29 2012 13:38 Belial88 wrote: Assault is generally used to describe violence, we aren't speaking a court of law here. But, I am definitely using the term assault as it is legally - to threaten violence by word or actions. If Zimmerman said "im going to beat the fuck out of you", that's grounds for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman. If Zimmerman said "im calling the cops on you, you suspicious, high, nigger, and you are going to stay here, because I am detaining you", that is not assault. I would argue that depends on the lawyers and the judge. If such a thing was said in a threatening manner, by a man who was armed with a gun, it very well could be called legally defined assault by some. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
§ 784.011, Fla.Stat. To prove the crime of Assault, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to (victim). 2. At the time, (defendant) appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. 3. The act of (defendant) created in the mind of (victim) a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
Does he follow him till he reaches a bus or a home and than he goes back to the car? Why should he just follow the kid without the intention to prevent him to escape? And when he has that intention why shouldnt he hold his arm or shoulder to prevent that? When he already called the cops he risk of being without anyone when the cops arrive and then the whole situation would have looked stupid for zimmerman. If he feared that he might be over eager here. Whitnesses like you said are VERY unrelieble especially if they know a person involved, like you sad. I see the wittneses being biased becouse Zimmerman improves savety there and so he does something for everyone living there wich makes the case quite tricky to me. Not that they lieing on purpose maybe they have just missed the first 20 seconds where zimemrman was actually holding the kid from walking away, wich would make sence since you start looking when you hear something strange, not before. | ||
|
Renent
Canada302 Posts
On March 29 2012 06:53 dAPhREAk wrote: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf he was treated and then taken for questioning after treatment at the scene. i have not seen a medical records report, which is usually not disclosed due to privacy concerns. I guess my point is, if he wasn't transported it could quite possibly give us a hint as to the extent of his injuries when he was fighting off this said attack.... Obviously they arent disclosed to the media, but PCRs and health care providers can be summoned to testify in court, so maybe this will happen.... | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
But why to follow someone thats one of the issues for me here. Well, it's not. It's not an issue whether or not he followed him. So what, say he did. Does that give Trayvon the right to assault him? Hell no. Would that mean Zimmerman is a nutjob? Maybe, but you don't go to jail for being a nutjob. Now if Zimmerman was brandishing his firearm, or 'assaulted' trayvon, as in being very threatening or attacking, then Zimmerman would be a murderer. But, besides Zimmerman being bloody in the 3 minutes it took police to arrive (ie he couldn't have done it to himself), (unreliable) multiple witness testimony, and the DA's office not acting upon the situation, we really don't know what happened, and are just speculating on whether or not Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman first or not. Does he follow him till he reaches a bus or a home and than he goes back to the car? he can follow him as much as he wants in the public. As trayvon was going back to a house in the neighborhood, Zimmerman would have been able to walk up the front yard and then stop there. Why should he just follow the kid without the intention to prevent him to escape? Because it's a gated community, and he's prevented a burglary before in the neighborhood? Maybe the circumstances of the burglary were exactly the same. I don't think he was unjustified at all at being suspicious at seeing a 17-24 year old male (demographic for crime in terms of age) that doesnt live in his neighborhood, and, according to zimerman, acting high/suspicious. Doesn't matter if he followed him. It doesn't matter. It's not illegal, and there's nothing wrong with following someone in the public. Or do you think it's okay to put papparazzi in jail? What about reporters? Are they breaking the law for following people in public? What if you suspect someone of committing a crime, or youi've never seen before, and they were acting suspicious? Do you think that's wrong too? It doesn't matter why he folowd him, or if he was following him at all. Get it out of your head, because it doesn't matter. And, for your information, there is nothing wrong with following someone who you've never seen before in your gated community. All that would have happened, is zimmerman would've followed him until Trayvon revealed he just moved in to his father's house, who lived there, or trayvon would've walked into his house and Zimmerman would have been "Oh, he must be new". Instead, an altercation took place. If zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, he's a murderer. If trayvon attacked first, Zimmerman acted in self defense. We don't know what happened, no matter how much the media speculates. And when he has that intention why shouldnt he hold his arm or shoulder to prevent that? You can do a civilian's arrest on someone, but you are not allowed to physically detain them. All it means is you can say "Stay here, I'm executing a civilian's arrest, I'm calling the police", and the other person can leave if they want to. If Zimmmerman grabbed Trayvon, that would be assault. Which would kind of make him the murderer. But we don't know that, and what limited we know, it seems that he didn't grab trayvon. BUT WE DONT KNOW. SO DONT SPECULATE ON IT. Dont make judgements, dont act like you know what the hell you are talking about. Because none of us do. Either zimmerman or trayvon attacked first. That's all that matters, and that's what we don't know. I see the wittneses being biased becouse Zimmerman improves savety there and so he does something for everyone living there wich makes the case quite tricky to me. A lot of the people in the neighborhood also said they don't like zimmerman, and even though witnesses are unreliable, they aren't unreliable in the sense tthat they all provide the same lie. If they all say the same thing, that is usually pretty good as evidence, which is what is going. Not that they lieing on purpose maybe they have just missed the first 20 seconds where zimemrman was actually holding the kid from walking away, wich would make sence since you start looking when you hear something strange, not before. Only 1 witness said they saw Trayvon attack zimmerman first. So really, no one knows if Zimmerman is a murderer or not. Even if he was, there is not enough evidence to charge him with murder. Whatever happens, unless zimmerman says he killed Travyon in cold blood or that he threatened him, Zimmerman should not be charged with murder, because there is not enough evidence (as has been released to the general public). | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On March 29 2012 09:19 Cloud9157 wrote: They're trying to point out a flaw in the credibility that Travyon was a "harmless boy who never did anything to anyone". I can't even tell you how many times in Chicago that when a kid is shot(most seem to be African American, but that is REALLY beside the point, there have been Hispanic/Whites as well) no one ever has anything negative to say about the child. I'm really skeptical about this case. At first I was sure he killed the kid in cold blood, but then Zimmerman somehow gets punched in the face and the back of the head(I believe that was it)? Something doesn't add up imo. being punched in the head when stalking someone = uncommon? what would you do if someone was stalking you? "Oh hello good sir, may I ask why is it you have been following me for the past 10 minutes?" get real. if someone was following me and was aggressive towards me at all you bet your ass i would fight him and subdue him. since when does getting punched in the head = life in danger? | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
On March 29 2012 14:25 Belial88 wrote: Well, it's not. It's not an issue whether or not he followed him. So what, say he did. Does that give Trayvon the right to assault him? Hell no. Would that mean Zimmerman is a nutjob? Maybe, but you don't go to jail for being a nutjob. Now if Zimmerman was brandishing his firearm, or 'assaulted' trayvon, as in being very threatening or attacking, then Zimmerman would be a murderer. But, besides Zimmerman being bloody in the 3 minutes it took police to arrive (ie he couldn't have done it to himself), (unreliable) multiple witness testimony, and the DA's office not acting upon the situation, we really don't know what happened, and are just speculating on whether or not Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman first or not. he can follow him as much as he wants in the public. As trayvon was going back to a house in the neighborhood, Zimmerman would have been able to walk up the front yard and then stop there. Because it's a gated community, and he's prevented a burglary before in the neighborhood? Maybe the circumstances of the burglary were exactly the same. I don't think he was unjustified at all at being suspicious at seeing a 17-24 year old male (demographic for crime in terms of age) that doesnt live in his neighborhood, and, according to zimerman, acting high/suspicious. Doesn't matter if he followed him. It doesn't matter. It's not illegal, and there's nothing wrong with following someone in the public. Or do you think it's okay to put papparazzi in jail? What about reporters? Are they breaking the law for following people in public? What if you suspect someone of committing a crime, or youi've never seen before, and they were acting suspicious? Do you think that's wrong too? It doesn't matter why he folowd him, or if he was following him at all. Get it out of your head, because it doesn't matter. And, for your information, there is nothing wrong with following someone who you've never seen before in your gated community. All that would have happened, is zimmerman would've followed him until Trayvon revealed he just moved in to his father's house, who lived there, or trayvon would've walked into his house and Zimmerman would have been "Oh, he must be new". Instead, an altercation took place. If zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, he's a murderer. If trayvon attacked first, Zimmerman acted in self defense. We don't know what happened, no matter how much the media speculates. You can do a civilian's arrest on someone, but you are not allowed to physically detain them. All it means is you can say "Stay here, I'm executing a civilian's arrest, I'm calling the police", and the other person can leave if they want to. If Zimmmerman grabbed Trayvon, that would be assault. Which would kind of make him the murderer. But we don't know that, and what limited we know, it seems that he didn't grab trayvon. BUT WE DONT KNOW. SO DONT SPECULATE ON IT. Dont make judgements, dont act like you know what the hell you are talking about. Because none of us do. Either zimmerman or trayvon attacked first. That's all that matters, and that's what we don't know. A lot of the people in the neighborhood also said they don't like zimmerman, and even though witnesses are unreliable, they aren't unreliable in the sense tthat they all provide the same lie. If they all say the same thing, that is usually pretty good as evidence, which is what is going. Only 1 witness said they saw Trayvon attack zimmerman first. So really, no one knows if Zimmerman is a murderer or not. Even if he was, there is not enough evidence to charge him with murder. Whatever happens, unless zimmerman says he killed Travyon in cold blood or that he threatened him, Zimmerman should not be charged with murder, because there is not enough evidence (as has been released to the general public). I was just saying that following someone with the intention of holding him back by force is unjustified and makes him a murder, but only a minor one, i believe in germany he would get the lowest possible punishment in such a case wich would be 4 years. He would actually sit 1 year or so. So its not that big of a deal. Following someone is nothing wrong especially if you dont confront the person. (usually the person you follow should not notice you) You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all. For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court. EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent. | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-video-shows-no-blood-bruises-george-194108003--abc-news-topstories.html If this happens to be true and the police lied about zimmerman bleeding and getting attacked, oh man... and there's been reports that police have tried to persuade witnesses so i don't really think this is very far fetched. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
On March 29 2012 14:25 Silidons wrote: being punched in the head when stalking someone = uncommon? what would you do if someone was stalking you? "Oh hello good sir, may I ask why is it you have been following me for the past 10 minutes?" get real. if someone was following me and was aggressive towards me at all you bet your ass i would fight him and subdue him. since when does getting punched in the head = life in danger? If someone was following me, I would ask them, without assaulting them, what was up, or I would go somewhere where people, or into my car or home. I may even call the police. But I would not assault them, and someone following me is definitely not grounds to attack them or threaten them. No one would, except if you were nuts. Why, do you punch anyone who happens to be walking the same way as you? What about cars? What if a car is 'following' you, but just another person driving to New York from California (or whever you are and going)? 'Get Real'. If Zimmerman was 'aggressive', as in said threatening comments or attacked him, then Trayvon could attack back, and zimmerman would be a murderer. But we don't know what happened there. So get over it, stop speculating, and stop being a puppet and think for yourself, instead of let people who have an agenda (like al sharpton who gets money for riling people up, or media who want to sensationalize a case so you watch their channel) think for you. And yea, getting punched in the head definitely is 'life in danger'. That's pretty fucking threatening. Unless you punch me in the head and then run away (which means 95%+ of the time you won't get hit with 100% of the bullets shot at you, by the way, as a moving target further and further away), I will definitely fear for my life unless you were much smaller than me. If you were big enough to bloody me though, that's definitely life in danger. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all. For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court. EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent. I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive. What is conclusive is: 1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation. 2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to. 3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation. I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please. It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really). | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On March 29 2012 14:25 Silidons wrote: being punched in the head when stalking someone = uncommon? what would you do if someone was stalking you? "Oh hello good sir, may I ask why is it you have been following me for the past 10 minutes?" get real. if someone was following me and was aggressive towards me at all you bet your ass i would fight him and subdue him. since when does getting punched in the head = life in danger? Since a single punch to the head can render you unconscious and unable to retain your firearm. | ||
| ||
