|
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. |
On July 02 2013 04:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:21 Crownlol wrote:On July 02 2013 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Just because you are injured doesn't mean you are going to die. Or to put it another way, most fights in a club or bar do not rise to a level where deadly force would be acceptable. But, once again, you need eye witness of that fight to prove it. Since Zimmerman is claiming he felt Martian was trying to kill him and other witnesses such limited information, it is tough to refute his word. What are you talking about? Fights commonly lead to permanent injuries and death. This is the sort of BS that people who've never been in a fight/healthcare need to stop swilling around the internet. Whenever lethal force comes up, there's always this argument around "well, he only hit him like 3x, and they weren't good punches either. He shouldn't have used that gun/knife/taser". Once it's at the battery stage, you need to defend yourself. All right, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge the others ability to handle them self in a fight, so why don't you just drop that assumption right there. And this discussion isn't really about healthcare, so I don't know why you are bringing that up. My only point is that most physical conflicts are not done with the intent to kill the other party. It is possible the Martian was not trying to kill Zimmerman and there was no point where a "reasonable person" would have believe they were going to be killed. However, because we don't have any witness to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martian was trying to kill him, it is hard for the DA to make that case.
Good's testament strongly suggests that Trayvon was intending to do great harm because he specifically asked Trayvon to stop and Trayvon did not. It was a damning testimony that has yet to be refuted.
|
On July 02 2013 04:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Because I still find his overall actions malicious. How he got where he did, him chasing after Martin, and even on who jumped who first etc... However, if there was a third guy there telling Martin to stop--and Martin refused to stop, then I can see a legal ground for self defense. No, I do not think he was some guy who was harmlessly walking about. I do believe that he chased after Trayvon, and that his frustration and need to go vigilante was leading him to murder. But if the "situation" was neutralized enough by Trayvon for a third party to arrive there asking him to stop; then blows following after that are acts of aggression that legally allows self defense. Until evidence proves Good wrong, that's the only conclusion that can be made.
Yet everything you've claimed that Zimmerman did (having ill-will, implying that Zimmerman started the fight, etc.) is not supported in any way or form by the credible evidence that's been presented. It's your opinion that Zimmerman did all of those things.
|
On July 02 2013 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Diavlo wrote:
I'm not familiar with police interrogation but is it often this shallow? Or was that just a preliminary interrogation?
I mean, no questions about whether or not Martin touched the holster or the gun or if Zimmerman fought back in any way for example seem pretty weird.
i had the same reaction. it seemed like the investigator just wanted to get it over with and write-off the kid's death. Remember how long it took them to get the police just to arrest Zimmerman and all the horrible press that police department was receiving at the time? Your assessment isn't far off from what was reported at the time.
It's pretty much the whole reason why this case got national media attention in the first place. Trayvon's parents were struggling to get the police to admit the circumstances of Trayvon's death were suspicious or nebulous, or warranted further investigation.
Imagine if you lived in New York or Washington and the roles were reversed — an armed black man follows a white man in the middle of the night, and a confrontation results in the black man shooting the white man and claiming self defense. It's hard to imagine that guy sitting at home and watching TV the following week.
|
On July 02 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:31 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 04:21 Crownlol wrote:On July 02 2013 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Just because you are injured doesn't mean you are going to die. Or to put it another way, most fights in a club or bar do not rise to a level where deadly force would be acceptable. But, once again, you need eye witness of that fight to prove it. Since Zimmerman is claiming he felt Martian was trying to kill him and other witnesses such limited information, it is tough to refute his word. What are you talking about? Fights commonly lead to permanent injuries and death. This is the sort of BS that people who've never been in a fight/healthcare need to stop swilling around the internet. Whenever lethal force comes up, there's always this argument around "well, he only hit him like 3x, and they weren't good punches either. He shouldn't have used that gun/knife/taser". Once it's at the battery stage, you need to defend yourself. All right, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge the others ability to handle them self in a fight, so why don't you just drop that assumption right there. And this discussion isn't really about healthcare, so I don't know why you are bringing that up. My only point is that most physical conflicts are not done with the intent to kill the other party. It is possible the Martian was not trying to kill Zimmerman and there was no point where a "reasonable person" would have believe they were going to be killed. However, because we don't have any witness to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martian was trying to kill him, it is hard for the DA to make that case. Good's testament strongly suggests that Trayvon was intending to do great harm because he specifically asked Trayvon to stop and Trayvon did not. It was a damning testimony that has yet to be refuted.
If they have no way to refute that, the DA may have a huge problem with the jury. If the fight went exactly Zimmerman described, I don't know how the DA will win this.
|
Kind of weird to hear the police ask a lot of the same questions people were getting shit on for raising in this thread
|
On July 02 2013 04:36 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Because I still find his overall actions malicious. How he got where he did, him chasing after Martin, and even on who jumped who first etc... However, if there was a third guy there telling Martin to stop--and Martin refused to stop, then I can see a legal ground for self defense. No, I do not think he was some guy who was harmlessly walking about. I do believe that he chased after Trayvon, and that his frustration and need to go vigilante was leading him to murder. But if the "situation" was neutralized enough by Trayvon for a third party to arrive there asking him to stop; then blows following after that are acts of aggression that legally allows self defense. Until evidence proves Good wrong, that's the only conclusion that can be made. Yet everything you've claimed that Zimmerman did (having ill-will, implying that Zimmerman started the fight, etc.) is not supported in any way or form by the credible evidence that's been presented. It's your opinion that Zimmerman did all of those things.
Armed man follows teen towards teen's home and shoots him.
I have found no proof that this is false. Zimmerman was armed, he followed Trayvon, and ended up near close to Trayvon's home.
Good's testimony shows what happened after all of that; wherein Trayvon is supposedly beating Zimmerman while a third party is there asking him to stop (suggesting to me that he wanted to end the altercation). That is now a situation of 2 people with a problem with an arbiter to keep things civil. At this point, Trayvon decided to press his advantage and continue supposedly striking Zimmerman.
Until that set of events is refuted all other events prior are meaningless.
|
On July 02 2013 04:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:21 Crownlol wrote:On July 02 2013 04:00 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Just because you are injured doesn't mean you are going to die. Or to put it another way, most fights in a club or bar do not rise to a level where deadly force would be acceptable. But, once again, you need eye witness of that fight to prove it. Since Zimmerman is claiming he felt Martian was trying to kill him and other witnesses such limited information, it is tough to refute his word. What are you talking about? Fights commonly lead to permanent injuries and death. This is the sort of BS that people who've never been in a fight/healthcare need to stop swilling around the internet. Whenever lethal force comes up, there's always this argument around "well, he only hit him like 3x, and they weren't good punches either. He shouldn't have used that gun/knife/taser". Once it's at the battery stage, you need to defend yourself. All right, I don't think either of us are in a position to judge the others ability to handle them self in a fight, so why don't you just drop that assumption right there. And this discussion isn't really about healthcare, so I don't know why you are bringing that up. My only point is that most physical conflicts are not done with the intent to kill the other party. It is possible the Martian was not trying to kill Zimmerman and there was no point where a "reasonable person" would have believe they were going to be killed. However, because we don't have any witness to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martian was trying to kill him, it is hard for the DA to make that case.
I meant "people" in the infinitive, because it's usually the basement-dweller type who acts like they know everything about fighting on the internet. Didn't mean to roundabout attack you directly 
My point, is that physical assault *can and does* lead to death, thus any direct blow or assault needs to be treated as having the potential for death or permanent injury.
|
On July 02 2013 04:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:52 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Diavlo wrote:
I'm not familiar with police interrogation but is it often this shallow? Or was that just a preliminary interrogation?
I mean, no questions about whether or not Martin touched the holster or the gun or if Zimmerman fought back in any way for example seem pretty weird.
i had the same reaction. it seemed like the investigator just wanted to get it over with and write-off the kid's death. Remember how long it took them to get the police just to arrest Zimmerman and all the horrible press that police department was receiving at the time? Your assessment isn't far off from what was reported at the time. It's pretty much the whole reason why this case got national media attention in the first place. Trayvon's parents were struggling to get the police to admit the circumstances of Trayvon's death were suspicious or nebulous, or warranted further investigation. Imagine if you lived in New York or Washington and the roles were reversed — an armed black man follows a white man in the middle of the night, and a confrontation results in the black man shooting the white man and claiming self defense. It's hard to imagine that guy sitting at home and watching TV the following week.
more and more its looking like the original decision not to prosecute was correct.
|
Just out of curiosity — if someone drew a gun on you, and you lunged and mounted and pummelled them, couldn't you claim that they posed an imminent threat and you were acting in self-defense?
If Trayvon were alive to testify, would knowing whether or not Zimmerman had a gun at the beginning at the altercation matter?
|
Armed man follows teen towards teen's home and shoots him.
My question, for the lawmen, is whether or not this constitutes the type of intent that would help to prove that Zimmerman started the altercation.
|
On July 02 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:36 ConGee wrote:On July 02 2013 04:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury. Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury. Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries. So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury. Are you actually arguing that Zimmerman could no longer have been reasonably scared of serious injury after receiving the first blow to his head while Trayvon was still on top of him? I was technically specifying a difference between what leads to injuries and the presence of injuries. A blow to the head can lead to a head injury. Presence of head injury does not lead to a head injury. If Zimmerman was struck once, and no more, then the doctor can only say that the strike lead to a specific injury. If Zimmerman was struck "MMA Style," then the doctor can say that each successive blow could lead to head injuries with each additional blow increasing the chance for said injury. Specifically; - If Trayvon charged at him and he shot trayvon before a blow landed--the doctor can say that the strike could lead to a head injury. - If Zimmerman shot Trayvon after the first hit but was threatened with follow up hits, then the doctor could say that those blows could lead to a serious head injury. But the doctor can't say that the existence of head injuries automatically leads to more head injuries without a catalyst. I see what you're saying, but you have to remember that head injuries can worsen over time, with or without medical attention. Remember Billy Mays? He got hit in the head by a suitcase falling out of the overhead on a plane. Aside from the pain when he first got hit, he felt. Then, out of nowhere, days later he dropped dead. On July 02 2013 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 03:56 Millitron wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Actually, doctors should only be able to say that blows to the head have the potential to lead to serious injury.
Injuries to the head are simply injuries that are present on the head. The doctor *could* say that lack of medical treatment *could* lead to exacerbation of current injuries.
So, technically, the doctor can really only say that Trayvon's blow to the head resulted in the injuries currently present on the client. Prior to the impact of Trayvon's blow, that is where the potential for serious injury to occur. And one can theoretically argue that before the point of contact is when Zimmerman could be scared of potential serious injury.
The jury's opinion of "reasonable fear" could be greatly influenced by who started the altercation and how it took place. Sadly, since there are few eye witnesses, it is all conjecture and there is no way to prove who had the "upper hand" in the fight. Doesn't the fact that Zimmerman suffered injuries, while Martin (aside from the gunshot wound) did not, mean that Martin had the upper hand? It seems pretty conclusive to me, though I'm no lawyer. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with being hit. Trayvon's injuries are consistent with being shot. Neither reveals who had the upper hand because that assumes one should measure "upper handedness" based on either fist injuries OR gun injuries without context. In other words, just because Trayvon punched Zimmerman more does not mean Trayvon had the upper hand for much the same reason that just because Zimmerman shot Trayvon more does not mean that Zimmerman had the upper hand. Fair. I suppose Zimmerman could've landed blows and simply not bruised or cut Martin. The witness (Good I think was his surname?) has sealed the results of this case simply because I have yet to see the state refute his testimony of seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, asking Trayvon to stop, and then calling the police. If Trayvon was acting in self defense, as I believe he did, then he succeeded the moment a third party was there asking him to stop. Him continuing afterwards ends his self defense and starts Zimmerman's self defense. I'm still hoping for evidence against Good's testimony; but I have not seen it yet. why are you "hoping" for anything? Because I still find his overall actions malicious. How he got where he did, him chasing after Martin, and even on who jumped who first etc... However, if there was a third guy there telling Martin to stop--and Martin refused to stop, then I can see a legal ground for self defense. No, I do not think he was some guy who was harmlessly walking about. I do believe that he chased after Trayvon, and that his frustration and need to go vigilante was leading him to murder. But if the "situation" was neutralized enough by Trayvon for a third party to arrive there asking him to stop; then blows following after that are acts of aggression that legally allows self defense. Until evidence proves Good wrong, that's the only conclusion that can be made. Yet everything you've claimed that Zimmerman did (having ill-will, implying that Zimmerman started the fight, etc.) is not supported in any way or form by the credible evidence that's been presented. It's your opinion that Zimmerman did all of those things. Armed man follows teen towards teen's home and shoots him. I have found no proof that this is false. Zimmerman was armed, he followed Trayvon, and ended up near close to Trayvon's home. Good's testimony shows what happened after all of that; wherein Trayvon is supposedly beating Zimmerman while a third party is there asking him to stop (suggesting to me that he wanted to end the altercation). That is now a situation of 2 people with a problem with an arbiter to keep things civil. At this point, Trayvon decided to press his advantage and continue supposedly striking Zimmerman. Until that set of events is refuted all other events prior are meaningless.
nobody has testified zimmerman "followed" trayvon. zimmerman just recounted the events and said he was walking to the other street to check addresses, didnt see trayvon on the right, he went to the street, turned around and then trayvon was on the left where zimmerman previously didnt see him and that is where the altercation occurred, which was supported by the asian dude and john good. i dont recall specifically where the other witnesses were that there was movement left to right, but i am not sure its inconsistent with zimmerman's recount.
|
On July 02 2013 04:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:52 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Diavlo wrote:
I'm not familiar with police interrogation but is it often this shallow? Or was that just a preliminary interrogation?
I mean, no questions about whether or not Martin touched the holster or the gun or if Zimmerman fought back in any way for example seem pretty weird.
i had the same reaction. it seemed like the investigator just wanted to get it over with and write-off the kid's death. Remember how long it took them to get the police just to arrest Zimmerman and all the horrible press that police department was receiving at the time? Your assessment isn't far off from what was reported at the time. It's pretty much the whole reason why this case got national media attention in the first place. Trayvon's parents were struggling to get the police to admit the circumstances of Trayvon's death were suspicious or nebulous, or warranted further investigation. Imagine if you lived in New York or Washington and the roles were reversed — an armed black man follows a white man in the middle of the night, and a confrontation results in the black man shooting the white man and claiming self defense. It's hard to imagine that guy sitting at home and watching TV the following week.
That is why this case has gotten to much traction as well, because the police created this "cloud of wrong doing" when they didn't look into the matter further. They should have just responded to the first request, opened an investigation and dealt with the matter, rather than dragging the arrest process out for so long.
|
On July 02 2013 04:43 Defacer wrote:
Just out of curiosity — if someone drew a gun on you, and you lunged and mounted and pummelled them, couldn't you claim that they posed an imminent threat and you were acting in self-defense?
If Trayvon were alive to testify, would knowing whether or not Zimmerman had a gun at the beginning at the altercation matter?
Yes.
|
On July 02 2013 04:43 Crownlol wrote:My question, for the lawmen, is whether or not this constitutes the type of intent that would help to prove that Zimmerman started the altercation.
that by itself says nothing about intent or state of mind. we dont know why he alleged followed him, and we dont know why he allegedly shot him.
|
On July 02 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:43 Crownlol wrote:
Armed man follows teen towards teen's home and shoots him.
My question, for the lawmen, is whether or not this constitutes the type of intent that would help to prove that Zimmerman started the altercation. that by itself says nothing about intent or state of mind. we dont know why he alleged followed him, and we dont know why he allegedly shot him.
Having the gun by itself doesn't amount to anything, but having a gun while pursuing someone does, at least in terms of fear for ones life. Granted, this is all given that Trayvon were alive to testify to such things.
|
On July 02 2013 04:37 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:52 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Diavlo wrote:
I'm not familiar with police interrogation but is it often this shallow? Or was that just a preliminary interrogation?
I mean, no questions about whether or not Martin touched the holster or the gun or if Zimmerman fought back in any way for example seem pretty weird.
i had the same reaction. it seemed like the investigator just wanted to get it over with and write-off the kid's death. Remember how long it took them to get the police just to arrest Zimmerman and all the horrible press that police department was receiving at the time? Your assessment isn't far off from what was reported at the time. It's pretty much the whole reason why this case got national media attention in the first place. Trayvon's parents were struggling to get the police to admit the circumstances of Trayvon's death were suspicious or nebulous, or warranted further investigation. Imagine if you lived in New York or Washington and the roles were reversed — an armed black man follows a white man in the middle of the night, and a confrontation results in the black man shooting the white man and claiming self defense. It's hard to imagine that guy sitting at home and watching TV the following week.
The comments leading up to the one you're responding to were unfair. The first short audio clip (that we mistook for the full interview) was only a precursor to the video interview that was played afterwards.
That said, I think the department clearly screwed up in not finding girl with whom Trayvon was on the phone. There's now an element of uncertainty surrounding the star witness of the prosecution's case, and that uncertainty was bred partly through the police department's lack of thoroughness. A quick five-minute examination of Trayvon's phone would have led the investigators right to her, and there wouldn't be a black cloud of Crump hanging over her evidence today.
Regarding your last paragraph, maybe that would be true 15-20 years ago, but today an armed black man shooting a white man and claiming self-defense wouldn't make the front page news anywhere, especially not in a big market like New York. Nobody is surprised anymore.
|
Didn't the DA only go through with the prosecution because of public pressure to begin with? It's as if they already knew the case was bunk.
|
On July 02 2013 04:43 Defacer wrote:
Just out of curiosity — if someone drew a gun on you, and you lunged and mounted and pummelled them, couldn't you claim that they posed an imminent threat and you were acting in self-defense?
If Trayvon were alive to testify, would knowing whether or not Zimmerman had a gun at the beginning at the altercation matter?
Being that I believe the truth of the events fits very closely to how you describe it. Yes, Trayvon would be tried for murder and arguing self defense.
And during that trial, once Good shows up and testifies that he asked Martin to stop and Martin refused (by continuing to pummel Zimmerman), Martin would not have a good case for self defense since he continued striking after a third party showed up asking for the altercation to stop.
Which is why I was so bummed last week...
|
Looks like this officer was pickin up what I was laying down.
Did Zimmerman get zapped with a memory eraser ray between the interrogation room and the desk?
|
On July 02 2013 04:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:37 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 03:52 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 03:47 Diavlo wrote:
I'm not familiar with police interrogation but is it often this shallow? Or was that just a preliminary interrogation?
I mean, no questions about whether or not Martin touched the holster or the gun or if Zimmerman fought back in any way for example seem pretty weird.
i had the same reaction. it seemed like the investigator just wanted to get it over with and write-off the kid's death. Remember how long it took them to get the police just to arrest Zimmerman and all the horrible press that police department was receiving at the time? Your assessment isn't far off from what was reported at the time. It's pretty much the whole reason why this case got national media attention in the first place. Trayvon's parents were struggling to get the police to admit the circumstances of Trayvon's death were suspicious or nebulous, or warranted further investigation. Imagine if you lived in New York or Washington and the roles were reversed — an armed black man follows a white man in the middle of the night, and a confrontation results in the black man shooting the white man and claiming self defense. It's hard to imagine that guy sitting at home and watching TV the following week. The comments leading up to the one you're responding to were unfair. The first short audio clip (that we mistook for the full interview) was only a precursor to the video interview that was played afterwards. That said, I think the department clearly screwed up in not finding girl with whom Trayvon was on the phone. There's now an element of uncertainty surrounding the star witness of the prosecution's case, and that uncertainty was bred partly through the police department's lack of thoroughness. A quick five-minute examination of Trayvon's phone would have led the investigators right to her, and there wouldn't be a black cloud of Crump hanging over her evidence today. Regarding your last paragraph, maybe that would be true 15-20 years ago, but today an armed black man shooting a white man and claiming self-defense wouldn't make the front page news anywhere, especially not in a big market like New York. Nobody is surprised anymore.
If I told you that the police were unable to access Trayvon's phone, and when they contacted Trayvon's father, that he refused to give them the passcode to access information, would you still feel they are to blame for not executing a "quick five-minute examination of Trayvon's phone" that would have "led the investigators right to" Jeantel ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
