Quite honestly if it wasn't a gun he would've used a knife. Weapons are replaceable.
I don't believe for a minute that he would have used a knife. Guns are easy, you just pull the trigger. Knives require a lot more than that. Honestly, if we're just speculating, I don't think he would have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun. That's just the nature of the weapon.
For realz? That's unfortunate. I don't know enough about gun control in America to contribute in a meaningful way, but I'm interested in other people's opinion of whether gun control or self-defense laws could/should be altered in like of this situation.
On a cold, rainy night, putting your hands in your pockets to keep your hands warm makes one "suspicious" ? Is that what happened here...? Among other things, he's carrying snacks with him...
he looks like a fellow la onda homie than "white"
the audio is pretty clear enough in the unaltered version from the sanford site
if you're interested in making your blood boil and catch on fire, you might be interested in the real-life Team Liquid thread that occured on Piers Morgan Tonight.
What a circus this case has been...I've changed my mind on whether I thought Zimmerman was guilty of murder no less than 3 times so far, and right now I'm honestly not sure either way. If I can just attempt to sum up the two sides of the argument right now:
Martin: -General outrage about possible racial stereotyping of blacks ('black youth = instantly suspicious'). -Insists that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and/or initiated the fight. -Believe that ignoring a 9/11 dispatcher's request and continuing pursuit further strengthens this case. -Zimmerman's personal life has now turned up some pretty sketchy things, argument that Zimmerman's character is such that he would murder Martin. -In some cases, disagreement with the Stand Your Ground law in general. -Outrage over people digging into Martin's personal life. -Martin's girlfriend's testimony. -Insistence that Zimmerman was NOT injured or fearing for his life when he shot Martin.
Zimmerman: -General outrage over media race-baiting (reporting Zimmerman was a white man when he is not, hyping up the race angle as much as possible, using his 13-year old picture). -Insists that Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman acted in self-defense. -Believe that Zimmerman may have actually heeded the dispatcher's request before the fight and may have been walking back to his SUV, but was then attacked. -Martin's personal life of (unverified and questionably obtained information) drug dealing, theft, and assault as argument that Martin's character is such that he would attack Zimmerman first. -Testimony of a young person nearby (name not released I think?) who says Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten up. -Police reports of Zimmerman's nose and head injuries.
Both sides: -Examination of the grainy video of Zimmerman, trying to determine if he had visible injuries or not. Some people say they can see a gash near/on Zimmerman's bald spot, others say that's just a bump on his skull. Very difficult to tell with the video quality.
At this point I think it's impossible for outsiders to determine what really happened that night, the truth will hopefully come out in the trial through witness cross-examination, as there have been many conflicting witness reports of what happened.
The media has been ridiculously irresponsible with this case, though. If Zimmerman is found innocent, we may see some major riots thanks to their irresponsible reporting.
Quite honestly if it wasn't a gun he would've used a knife. Weapons are replaceable.
I don't believe for a minute that he would have used a knife. Guns are easy, you just pull the trigger. Knives require a lot more than that. Honestly, if we're just speculating, I don't think he would have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun. That's just the nature of the weapon.
This! And even if he used a knife, the victim would have had a much higher chance of surviving (you can outrun knives, but not bullets).
Quite honestly if it wasn't a gun he would've used a knife. Weapons are replaceable.
What about hands? Anyway, I didn't mean to post this to start a gun debate, but please read the article as it provides very good context on the details of the murder vis-a-vis gun control and policies.
if you're interested in making your blood boil and catch on fire, you might be interested in the real-life Team Liquid thread that occured on Piers Morgan Tonight.
I haven't followed this issue asides from hoodies and skittles, but this debate really angered me because of the way it was conducted. I think the sentence at the end of the Mediaite column really got the gist of the interview "the conflict between utter neutrality and the power of a point of view." It's just that the "point of view" is immovable and so determined of the Zimmerman conviction that any ideas that oppose it are considered offensive.
For realz? That's unfortunate. I don't know enough about gun control in America to contribute in a meaningful way, but I'm interested in other people's opinion of whether gun control or self-defense laws could/should be altered in like of this situation.
I do think gun control, specifically in the context of Neighbourhood Watchmen running around with them, is relevant to the case. While I agree that gun-control discussions turn very stupid very quickly, as evidenced by the absolutely mindnumbing discussion of why a knife is not a gun above, I don't think it should be completely off-bounds.
if you're interested in making your blood boil and catch on fire, you might be interested in the real-life Team Liquid thread that occured on Piers Morgan Tonight.
I haven't followed this issue asides from hoodies and skittles, but this debate really angered me because of the way it was conducted. I think the sentence at the end of the Mediaite column really got the gist of the interview "the conflict between utter neutrality and the power of a point of view." It's just that the "point of view" is immovable and so determined of the Zimmerman conviction that any ideas that oppose it are considered offensive.
I think Piers Morgan handled himself well in the face of sneering histrionics. I can understand why people are outraged by the situation, but it's not Piers Morgan's responsibility or obligation to channel it.
If Toure wants to grill Zimmerman's family, than he should get off his ass and book an interview.
For realz? That's unfortunate. I don't know enough about gun control in America to contribute in a meaningful way, but I'm interested in other people's opinion of whether gun control or self-defense laws could/should be altered in like of this situation.
I do think gun control, specifically in the context of Neighbourhood Watchmen running around with them, is relevant to the case. While I agree that gun-control discussions turn very stupid very quickly, as evidenced by the absolutely mindnumbing discussion of why a knife is not a gun above, I don't think it should be completely off-bounds.
What blows my mind is that seemingly, a private citizen has less accountability or more liberty to open fire on someone than the police force. Obviously that's not the intent of the self-defense law, but it certainly seems that way from an outsider's POV.
For realz? That's unfortunate. I don't know enough about gun control in America to contribute in a meaningful way, but I'm interested in other people's opinion of whether gun control or self-defense laws could/should be altered in like of this situation.
I do think gun control, specifically in the context of Neighbourhood Watchmen running around with them, is relevant to the case. While I agree that gun-control discussions turn very stupid very quickly, as evidenced by the absolutely mindnumbing discussion of why a knife is not a gun above, I don't think it should be completely off-bounds.
What blows my mind is that seemingly, a private citizen has less accountability or more liberty to open fire on someone than the police force. Obviously that's not the intent of the self-defense law, but it certainly seems that way from an outsider's POV.
Actually, that seems only natural to me. Civillians are not as qualified to make a judgement as that to what the apprpriate amount of force is as police officers. As such it seems only right that more leniency is shown towards civilians when they make a judgement that would be incorrect for a policeman. The more interesting question, in my opinion, is when to allow civilians to arm themselves and put themselves in a situation where they have to make such judgements.
it's really interesting to me that after 25 pages people are still posting pretty ignorant opinions that completely dismiss parts of the accounts given
like this:
On March 31 2012 14:39 nalgene wrote: On a cold, rainy night, putting your hands in your pockets to keep your hands warm makes one "suspicious" ? Is that what happened here...? Among other things, he's carrying snacks with him...
aren't you blatantly ignoring part of the story? i could be misunderstanding something, but weren't there a string of robberies in the last month in the neighborhood that trayvon was walking in? and was trayvon not a stranger to the neighborhood? i don't think it's fair for you to so casually dismiss zimmerman's suspicions and boil it down to "walking in the rain makes you suspicious" when that's quite clearly not the entire story
basically i've found the most logic in posts that have come to the following conclusions >the media has completely overblown the image of both zimmerman and trayvon -zimmerman has a history of being accused of violence. accusations do not equate to guilt. the charges of violence against an officer were dropped, they are irrelevant. the accusations from his ex were very like exaggerated as exes tend to do. the images used by the media to portray him as a convict are ridiculous. -trayvon was not the sparkling angel that everyone depicted him as. finding stolen jewelry in his bag at school AND a previous suspension for graffiti definitely lends credibility to zimmerman saying he looked suspicious in my eyes (i could definitely sympathize with zimmerman guessing that trayvon was casing the neighborhood).
>this was almost certainly not a racially charged white-on-black hate encounter -zimmerman is not white -zimmerman had alerted authorities a plethora of times over the last year about people of all races acting suspiciously -zimmerman did not refer to martin as a "coon," that's a ridiculous stretch in my eyes
>zimmerman definitely did not NEED to follow nor confront martin, as was advised by the dispatcher -this was likely an overzealous act by an overzealous man and had he exercised a bit more patience/caution/faith in the cops/common sense, this entire tragedy could have possibly been avoiaded -at the same time, it does not appear that zimmerman legally breached any laws by doing so
>there was a physical altercation of unknown magnitude preceding the shooting -it is unclear at this time who initiated physical contact first -there are conflicting eye-witness accounts, which should completely discredit all accounts, as eye-witness accounts have proven to be the most easily influenced and least legally sound accounts -it is unclear if the violence ever escalated to a point where lethal force was required -it is DEFINITELY unclear from grainy security camera footage how injured zimmerman was
>we have no first-hand account from trayvon, unfortunately
i think this means that this case will basically be decided by whether or not people believe zimmerman's account of the confrontation. will people agree that there was nothing legally wrong with approaching trayvon? with no one to conclusively and completely tell the story from martin's side, i don't see how we have any other logical choice but to believe that trayvon initiated the physical contact. and without knowing how injured zimmerman was, it's hard to say if escalating the violence to a firearm was necessary. but i've been jumped and assaulted. it took one punch to knock me to the ground and render me unconscious, whereupon the guy jumped on top of me and was beating the shit out of me. to shrug off that kind of assault as "how could a grown man not defend himself from a kid" is really misrepresenting the magnitude of that kind of attack. my life was definitely endangered. was zimmerman's? again, it's hard to say, but i don't think it's out of the realm of possiblity that a gun was necessary to defend himself at this point.
after initially being swayed by the media's gross portrayal of both men, i definitely thought zimmerman was a cold-hearted racist murderer. but now that i've had time to review all sides of the story and all the facts presented, i tentatively agree with the notion that zimmerman was an overzealous citizen who overstepped his bounds, and was forced into a situation where lethal defense was necessary. it was a tragedy, but in MY eyes, definitely not murder, definitely not racism, and definitely not cold-blooded.
The special prosecutor leading the investigation into the shooting death of an unarmed black teen by a neighborhood watch volunteer is known for her tough tactics aimed at locking up criminals for long sentences and making it difficult to negotiate light plea bargains.
Furthermore, 57-year-old Angela Corey has handled hundreds of homicide cases involving the justifiable use of deadly force -- experience that could prove invaluable. It will be up to Corey whether to charge 28-year-old George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who says he was defending himself when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a scuffle.
...
Since she took on the case a dozen days ago, Corey and her team of two prosecutors and an investigator have interviewed witnesses in Sanford and visited the scene of the shooting. She also has instituted a media blackout, refusing to comment on any aspect of the case as of this week. Corey refused to take any questions about the Trayvon Martin case during a telephone interview on Friday.
...
As a courtroom prosecutor, Corey was an aggressive advocate. When she ran for the State Attorney's Office in 2008, she made prosecuting juvenile criminals a top priority and celebrated her close ties to law enforcement agencies -- so much so that in its endorsement of Corey's opponent, The Florida Times-Union newspaper in Jacksonville wrote: "Is Corey's relationship with the sheriff and the unions too close? Yes."
...
As the Jacksonville-based State Attorney for three northeast Florida counties, she has been known for filing more charges, bringing more cases to trial and being less likely to use a grand jury than her predecessor. Florida prosecutors are required to use grand juries only in first-degree murder degrees. But many prosecutors send high-profile or controversial cases to grand juries to avoid the political fallout of an unpopular decision.
On April 01 2012 03:13 gtrsrs wrote: -there are conflicting eye-witness accounts, which should completely discredit all accounts, as eye-witness accounts have proven to be the most easily influenced and least legally sound accounts
Actually, there are no conflicting eyewitness accounts. Let me quote from the OP, under the Police Arrival spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
An eyewitness to the physical altercation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while the older man yelled for help. Another witness, Mary Cutcher, believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, though she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation.
There are two witnesses- one eyewitness who backs up Zimmerman's story, and another witness who saw nothing but based on what she heard, disagrees with Zimmerman's story, claiming that there was no physical altercation previous to the shooting. Note that this also conflicts with the account of Martin's girlfriend, who claims that she did hear a physical altercation, which must have been strong enough to cause Martin's headset to fall. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-story-so-far?newsfeed=true
i think this means that this case will basically be decided by whether or not people believe zimmerman's account of the confrontation. will people agree that there was nothing legally wrong with approaching trayvon? with no one to conclusively and completely tell the story from martin's side, i don't see how we have any other logical choice but to believe that trayvon initiated the physical contact. and without knowing how injured zimmerman was, it's hard to say if escalating the violence to a firearm was necessary. but i've been jumped and assaulted. it took one punch to knock me to the ground and render me unconscious, whereupon the guy jumped on top of me and was beating the shit out of me. to shrug off that kind of assault as "how could a grown man not defend himself from a kid" is really misrepresenting the magnitude of that kind of attack. my life was definitely endangered. was zimmerman's? again, it's hard to say, but i don't think it's out of the realm of possiblity that a gun was necessary to defend himself at this point.
How exactly is that the logical conclusion? "We only have one side of the story so lets just believe that one" Great logic there...
On April 01 2012 03:13 gtrsrs wrote: -there are conflicting eye-witness accounts, which should completely discredit all accounts, as eye-witness accounts have proven to be the most easily influenced and least legally sound accounts
Actually, there are no conflicting eyewitness accounts. Let me quote from the OP, under the Police Arrival spoiler: + Show Spoiler +
An eyewitness to the physical altercation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him up, while the older man yelled for help. Another witness, Mary Cutcher, believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, though she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation.
There are two witnesses- one eyewitness who backs up Zimmerman's story, and another witness who saw nothing but based on what she heard, disagrees with Zimmerman's story, claiming that there was no physical altercation previous to the shooting. Note that this also conflicts with the account of Martin's girlfriend, who claims that she did hear a physical altercation, which must have been strong enough to cause Martin's headset to fall. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-story-so-far?newsfeed=true
touche zato - you are correct. we have but one eye-witness account (which is dubious enough as is) and then a conflicting, projected ear-witness account, if you will. i would be hard-pressed to take either seriously
i think this means that this case will basically be decided by whether or not people believe zimmerman's account of the confrontation. will people agree that there was nothing legally wrong with approaching trayvon? with no one to conclusively and completely tell the story from martin's side, i don't see how we have any other logical choice but to believe that trayvon initiated the physical contact. and without knowing how injured zimmerman was, it's hard to say if escalating the violence to a firearm was necessary. but i've been jumped and assaulted. it took one punch to knock me to the ground and render me unconscious, whereupon the guy jumped on top of me and was beating the shit out of me. to shrug off that kind of assault as "how could a grown man not defend himself from a kid" is really misrepresenting the magnitude of that kind of attack. my life was definitely endangered. was zimmerman's? again, it's hard to say, but i don't think it's out of the realm of possiblity that a gun was necessary to defend himself at this point.
How exactly is that the logical conclusion? "We only have one side of the story so lets just believe that one" Great logic there...
how would any other outcome be logical? "we have only one side of the story, so we must disbelieve it"? "we have only one side of the story, so we must be inclined to believe that the other side of the story would be the polar opposite, and believe it instead"?
if zimmerman is under oath to tell the truth in court (which he will be) and he tells the same story he has been telling... and there is no one in the position to tell any conflicting stories, what logical choice do we have but to believe him? of course, in reality this is rarely how something would play out - the media completely coloring the story one way, peoples' prejudices being brought into the courtroom, people not being rational/logical - which is why i said "this case will basically be decided by whether or not people believe zimmerman's account of the confrontation"
EPT
