| 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. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 01 2013 01:24 zbedlam wrote: If the entirety of my post is explained by evidence there wouldn't be a case. Exactly. There really isn't a case, as the evidence is making clear. Unless there is a bombshell by the prosecution, this should have never been prosecuted in the first place, which is exactly the original conclusion made by the investigation at the time. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I like to take really late-night walks and one time only two blocks from my house this guy pulled up beside me in his pickup truck, got out, and started berating me about "casing houses" and being very hostile in general. At first I was polite and then I got bitchy back at him but it never entered my mind to jump him and beat him up. He left after he threatened to call the police and I told him I'd love for the police to show up right then and there. We were both white, that didn't stop him from treating me like some "punk." People do not need to see a different skin color to rage at someone walking around their neighborhood they think is suspicious. We've heard testimony from two prosecution witnesses that hostility was mutual ("creepy-ass cracker," and I'm sure Zimmerman didn't say "What are you doing here" in a polite tone or anything) and that Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman pounding away at him. Who started the fight is unknown and unknowable. Defacer you're making two assumptions: that Zimmerman is racist, just because Trayvon is black, and that it wouldn't have happened if Trayvon wasn't black so Zimmerman is guilty of murder. The evidence doesn't support Zimmerman being a racist, unless Trayvon being black is enough on its own to declare him racist. | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On June 30 2013 21:37 meadbert wrote: Killing someone makes you a killer, but not a murderer. Soldiers and executioners are killers, but not murderers. The biggest question that no one is talking about is what was the state of the "fight" when Zimmerman shot Martin. If Martin was still beating on him then that makes the self defense argument strong. If Martin had stopped the beating and given Zimmerman a chance to get up and then Zimmerman shot Martin in a fit of rage then that would destroy Zimmerman's case. The evidence presented up to this point is consistent with the fact that Zimmerman was being straddled by Martin and having his face punched into the cement for 40 seconds before Zimmerman fires and kills Martin. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 30 2013 21:37 meadbert wrote: The biggest question that no one is talking about is what was the state of the "fight" when Zimmerman shot Martin. If Martin was still beating on him then that makes the self defense argument strong. If Martin had stopped the beating and given Zimmerman a chance to get up and then Zimmerman shot Martin in a fit of rage then that would destroy Zimmerman's case. The forensics indicate that the gun was in contact with Trayvon's sweatshirt(s) at the time the shot was fired, while also separated from Trayvon's body by at least several inches. For this to happen, Trayvon would likely have to be positioned in such a way that his sweatshirt was pulled down by gravity, away from his body, consistent with a "ground and pound" position. Remember also, the full 23oz. can of Arizona "iced tea" was in the front pouch of Trayvon's sweatshirt at the time, which would contribute to this clothing separation in this ground and pound position, but not so much if Trayvon was vertical or standing. This is the best evidence to indicate their positioning at the time of the shot, and not only does it provide a reasonable doubt, but it's also the most likely, if not only, scenario for the forensics to have happened. edit: I'd suggest that nobody is talking about it because there isn't much to argue about. It's pretty compelling. That's why proponents of Zimmerman's guilt point to profiling, following, and disobeying orders, completely disregarding the self-defense during the encounter itself. They argue Zimmerman forfeited his right to self-defense prior to the physical confrontation. They really don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual time of the shooting as a matter of self-defense. | ||
|
FactMan
2 Posts
On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote: Okay, but why does this person have to be black? Why not white? Why not Chinese? Is there a cultural thing involved here?Do me a favor and please, please, pleeeeeeease go out tomorrow night, wait until it's dark, and follow a woman or black man down the street on foot on in your car for at least ten minutes. Better yet, bring a gun too, y'know ... 'just in case'. Report back and let us know whether you got maced in the face, kicked in the nuts, or the person went ran and hid from the crazy person following them. I'm pretty certain that much of the population would react by not starting violent conflict, but by reporting the stalker to the police. But you're right that a subset of people would respond with violent force. The issue is that most people wouldn't escalate to a life-or-death struggle, or at least they aren't so utterly consumed by rage that they'd convey the impression of trying to kill the other person. | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote: Do me a favor and please, please, pleeeeeeease go out tomorrow night, wait until it's dark, and follow a woman or black man down the street on foot on in your car for at least ten minutes. Better yet, bring a gun too, y'know ... 'just in case'. Report back and let us know whether you got maced in the face, kicked in the nuts, or the person went ran and hid from the crazy person following them. It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh. All of the reactions you suggested are far cries from straddling someone and punching their fact into the street. Evidence also suggests that Zimmerman was unsure of Martin's race when he began tailing him (he was unable to correctly identify Martin's race when he began tailing him). Tell me you wouldn't find it suspicious if there's some stranger walking around your neighborhood (which had been subject to multiple burglaries over the past few months) during a heavy rainstorm. | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
On July 01 2013 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: The forensics indicate that the gun was in contact with Trayvon's sweatshirt(s) at the time the shot was fired, while also separated from Trayvon's body by at least several inches. For this to happen, Trayvon would likely have to be positioned in such a way that his sweatshirt was pulled down by gravity, away from his body, consistent with a "ground and pound" position. Remember also, the full 23oz. can of Arizona "iced tea" was in the front pouch of Trayvon's sweatshirt at the time, which would contribute to this clothing separation in this ground and pound position, but not so much if Trayvon was vertical or standing. This is the best evidence to indicate their positioning at the time of the shot, and not only does it provide a reasonable doubt, but it's also the most likely, if not only, scenario for the forensics to have happened. edit: I'd suggest that nobody is talking about it because there isn't much to argue about. It's pretty compelling. That's why proponents of Zimmerman's guilt point to profiling, following, and disobeying orders, completely disregarding the self-defense during the encounter itself. They argue Zimmerman forfeited his right to self-defense prior to the physical confrontation. They really don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to the actual time of the shooting as a matter of self-defense. Do you have a link for this? I would like to post this in another tread that is talking about this. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On June 30 2013 19:19 Defacer wrote: What feels like a shame (to me) is that while the media has whipped the public into a frenzy by painting this situation as a case of preferential treatment of 'whites' or a racially motivated murder, there is this whole, more relevant conversation about gun legislation that is being overlooked. This feels like a case study that is gift-wrapped with a bow for gun control advocates. It's the perfect example of how guns can encourage an avoidable conflict, or can escalate any conflict or misunderstanding into a life or death situation. If Zimmerman isn't armed, does he approach Trayvon or the situation differently? If he suspects Trayvon is dangerous, does he even get out of his car? Because it would be a double-edged sword if they did begin pressing the issue before knowing the whole story. I'd actually say at this point, it actually supports the other side. The gun saved Zimmerman's life potentially and it isn't like Zimmerman approached Martin brandishing his weapon screaming "DA FUCK YOU DOING IN MAH NEIGHBORHOOD NIGGER?!" (like the media would apparently have you believe). Also, I could flip it around the other way as well. If Martin knew the gun laws and that Zimmerman could be armed, would he have jumped that "creepy ass cracker" in the first place? Does he even confront Zimmerman? Maybe he would have used words instead of fists. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 30 2013 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote: Culpable Negligence - Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Being armed with a gun to unnecessarily (against instruction actually) pursue a suspected criminal is precisely that. Or at least that's what the prosecution should have probably started with. carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 30 2013 22:13 Defacer wrote: Do me a favor and please, please, pleeeeeeease go out tomorrow night, wait until it's dark, and follow a woman or black man down the street on foot on in your car for at least ten minutes. Better yet, bring a gun too, y'know ... 'just in case'. Report back and let us know whether you got maced in the face, kicked in the nuts, or the person went ran and hid from the crazy person following them. It might be legal, but moral? They're are plenty of reasons why it's morally wrong to follow someone based on their appearance *cough blackness cough*. Doesn't Trayvon Martin have a fair expectation to be able to walk down the street like a normal person without being tailed by an armed man? Sheesh. do you intentionally ignore that this is his home and he is the neighborhood watch? or do you just not care? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:06 kmillz wrote: Does anybody know if the prosecution has anything "big" or "game-changing" that hasn't been brought up yet? So far doesn't seem like they have much other than "possible scenarios" that seem impossible to prove given the evidence we've seen so far. parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote: parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) If that's seriously how this trial ends up, I'll be beyond pissed. Hopefully the prosecution has some sort of evidence that would at least justify the costs of taking this case to trial. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote: parents - "that was my son crying for help" and lots of tears to make the jury feel empathy zimmerman - lies lies lies (he likely wont take the stand, but they will use his various statements against him) They don't need zimmerman to cry "lies lies lies" They have twice where the father publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. That is pretty damming to go against his new found claim of no doubt it is his son. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:18 ConGee wrote: If that's seriously how this trial ends up, I'll be beyond pissed. Hopefully the prosecution has some sort of evidence that would at least justify the costs of taking this case to trial. all witnesses and evidence are disclosed before the trial starts (except for impeachment evidence). there arent going to be any surprises. jeantel (w8) was their star witness. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:24 jeremycafe wrote: They don't need zimmerman to cry "lies lies lies" They have twice where the father publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. That is pretty damming to go against his new found claim of no doubt it is his son. i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:25 dAPhREAk wrote: i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." Yeah I suppose if they totally shred his credibility they could have a better shot at a conviction..as far as the parents saying that was their son crying for help. I'm gonna have a hard time seeing the jury believing that given the context of the scenario. Alot of people keep saying "I've never heard of someone with a gun crying for help"..which is just absurd. Jon Good said that he saw one person on top punching the other person "MMA style" and Trayvon Martin did not have any injuries from being punched...while Zimmerman did. Just because he had a gun doesn't mean getting punched "MMA style" would hurt any less nor would it mean that he couldn't have felt the need to yell for help. What sounds more plausible: Somebody with a gun being punched "MMA style" screaming for help? Or someone on top of somebody trying to whoop their ass screaming for help? It's quite obvious, to me, who was making the screams just by using the context of the scenario. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:25 dAPhREAk wrote: i meant they are going to show all the lies that zimmerman said during the course of the investigation and on the news, not that zimmerman is going to say "lies lies lies." But if Zimmerman doesn't testify, which most experts agree that after Good's testimony that he won't, of what relevance is discrediting Zimmerman ? All evidence is presented by witnesses other than Zimmerman. Also, did the State consider Rachel Jeantel to be the star witness, or was it the sensationalist media ? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 01 2013 04:47 Kaitlin wrote: But if Zimmerman doesn't testify, which most experts agree that after Good's testimony that he won't, of what relevance is discrediting Zimmerman ? All evidence is presented by witnesses other than Zimmerman. Also, did the State consider Rachel Jeantel to be the star witness, or was it the sensationalist media ? he is claiming self defense; if they can show that he has previously lied about his claims of self defense then they can discredit his defense. he doesnt need to testify to do that. i dont think its a foregone conclusion that he wont testify; he may do it because he presents well. there is significant advantage to having the defendant take the stand as most people think it shows guilt if he doesnt take the stand. i imagine they will try for an early dismissal after prosecutor's case and then make a decision whether to put zimmerman on. i dont expect zimmerman's defense to take long. maybe his parents come and say it is their son's voice; maybe zimmerman takes the stand; and then they are done. a day or two at best. this trial will be done next week easily. i think the state considered her the star witness as well. she had the potential for being an amazing witness. it didnt go over so well, but hindsight is 20-20. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22673 Posts
On July 01 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote: carrying a gun and confronting trayvon is not culpable negligence even under your alternate reality of the facts. If you think taking a deadly weapon to confront someone you presume to be a criminal and potentially armed, after being advised it was unnecessary, is not a situation "that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury" Then I would say you are wrong. Like I said before the question for manslaughter is "reasonably". Like a previous poster mentioned whether it be Neighborhood watch, the operator, or concealed carry classes they all tell you exactly what I am saying. That you don't do what Zimmerman did because what happened is a likely enough result to make it a reckless decision. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
