|
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 April 13 2012 06:00 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. This is likely the reason the 9-1-1 dispatcher advised against it. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Confronting someone while armed is not a dangerous act that shows little regard for human life, just like a police officer carrying a weapon doesn't show a disregard for human life.
Except that the intention of a police officer is clear, and they generally pursue people that are in violation of the law. This is not remotely similar to being followed for no apparent reason by an armed man who may or may not be crazy, you not having violated any laws.
You have no idea if Zimmerman was aggressive, and Trayvon had no way of knowing he was armed. If Zimmerman's account is true, and the eyewitness account is true, then Trayvon has no self-defense claim, because being spoken to at night does not constitute imminent bodily harm.
He was armed and forcing a confrontation with someone not in violation of the law against the advice of the dispatcher. How is it that you people have come to believe this isn't aggressive? And no, you're wrong. Being followed by someone when you're alone at night who may or may not have revealed a gun is reason enough to fear for your life. This is a precedent that has already been set countless times by women pepper spraying men that are following them around.
There is no reason to believe Zimmerman was "seeking armed confrontation" on this night, but none of the other nights. Let's keep in mind this is a volunteer position he has held for a while, and he's never been accused of, or suspected of, pulling or brandishing his weapon to kids or adults, black or otherwise, around the neighborhood.
I just don't know what to say. Are we arguing over a definition? Please tell me what you'd call it when you put a gun in your hand and go out of your way to confront someone. Also, his behavior on other nights is irrelevant, as it might well have been ridiculous and even criminal. We are questioning only his actions the night he killed Trayvon, because those are the relevant actions.
You specifically say "It's unclear how the situation escalated" and the proceed to claim that both are within their rights to self defense. How can you know that if it's unclear? You can't and don't.
But I'm not claiming Trayvon's right to defend himself on the basis of the escalation per se, I'm claiming it on the basis of being followed around and aggressively confronted by someone who may not have made his intentions particularly clear. You, on the other hand, are claiming Zimmerman's right to defend himself based on the nature of the escalation, the events of which, by your own admission, are unclear. Additionally, I'm saying the claim of self defense is based on a desire for self preservation, and when you go out of your way to arm yourself and confront people that claim becomes somewhat ludicrous.
Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is only a dubious claim if you make things up out of thin air. If you go by the only eyewitness, Zimmerman was being punched on the ground. If you go by Zimmerman, same thing. If you go by any information we have at all, Zimmerman being attacked isn't dubious. The reason for him being attacked is.
Again, what you're saying is alleged at this point, but the reason for him being attacked can hardly be in question. But if you insist there is no reason for Zimmerman to be attacked, then it means you deny Trayvon's right to defend himself under those circumstances. So, let me get this straight. You believe in self defense as a means to validate one's aggression, but deny it as a means to defend against another's aggression?
Trying to use racism as depravity is a big stretch in this case. You've got to PROVE he was being racist. Because the fact that Trayvon is Black is not enough.
Fair enough, but getting a gun and forcing a confrontation (and by extention inviting the potential for disaster that goes along with that) against someone who is not doing anything wrong is deprave, or at the very least retarded.
|
On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons."
I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact.
|
Zimmerman attorney was Casey Anthony commentator
+ Show Spoiler +ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — When Casey Anthony stood trial last summer in her toddler's death, Mark O'Mara became a familiar face on local television making daily critiques of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the world-famous case.
Legal experts will now train their sights on O'Mara, who faces the parsing of his every move by a hungry public now that he is defending the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
O'Mara took on the job Wednesday, the day that a special prosecutor filed a second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who says he shot the unarmed teen in self-defense.
Before he was a legal expert at the trial of Anthony, who was acquitted of killing her 2-year-old daughter, O'Mara had a 27-year career pursuing self-defense cases, among others, but none that made headlines beyond the state line. Attorneys who know him used words like self-effacing and deliberate to describe him.
"He is not someone who is going to loud-talk or try to be bossy," said defense attorney Randy McCLean. "I think he comes across as knowledgeable and confident."
They couldn't imagine O'Mara would have staged a news conference like Zimmerman's ex-attorneys did on Tuesday, announcing on television they could no longer represent Zimmerman since he hadn't called them back and seemed to be behaving erratically.
O'Mara, 56, did stand before cameras Wednesday and Thursday after his client made a brief appearance before a Seminole County magistrate on second-degree murder charges. He said he wasn't taking a fee from Zimmerman and expressed concern about the release of papers that could violate the privacy of his client and Martin.
"He's frightened," O'Mara said of his client. He described the case as "a horrible intersection of two young men's lives and it ended in tragedy. We have to figure out how it happened, why it happened and who might be responsible for it."
In separate interviews with The Associated Press, O'Mara said he joined the case after being contacted by Zimmerman's family who had heard about him through other attorneys. When asked why he took the case, given Zimmerman's unpopularity, he said, "It's what I do."
He added, "I've done it for a long, long time. I think I'm pretty good at it. Mr. Zimmerman needs a very good and focused defense so we're going to build him one."
In the minutes after it became public that O'Mara was Zimmerman's new attorney, phones at the attorney's Orlando office began ringing nonstop Wednesday. The ringing made it difficult to hear what special prosecutor Angela Corey was saying as she announced the charges over a television at his office in a converted craftsman bungalow.
Zimmerman fatally shot Martin on Feb. 26 while the neighborhood watch volunteer was patrolling his gated community in Sanford, a town of 50,000 outside Orlando. Martin was walking back from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiancé when Zimmerman spotted him from his truck. He called 911 to report a suspicious person, then began following Martin. Moments later, residents heard shouts for help and a gunshot. Martin was found dead with a shot to the chest.
Zimmerman told authorities that he shot Martin in self-defense. Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. O'Mara has said his client would invoke the law, and could ask a judge to drop the case at a pretrial hearing before it reaches a jury.
O'Mara said that Zimmerman hasn't given him any details yet about what happened that night. He asked that some documents related to Zimmerman's arrest be sealed at a brief first appearance hearing; the judge didn't immediately rule.
O'Mara has had a wide-ranging practice throughout his career; he said he hasn't yet argued a case before a jury that involved a direct invocation of the state's 7-year-old "stand your ground" law.
"It is going to be a facet of this defense, I'm sure," O'Mara said. "That statute has some troublesome portions to it and we're now going to have some conversations and discussions about it as a state. But right now it is the law of Florida and it is the law that is going to have an impact on this case."
Public Defender Bob Wesley, who knew O'Mara in law school, said he has a reputation for hard work.
"He was always a grinder, working, working, working," said Wesley, whose jurisdiction covers metro Orlando. "He will be hardworking and humble and diligently prepare the case for presentation."
O'Mara, lanky and with reddish hair, grew up in Queens and followed his parents to Florida following high school after his father retired as president of a fire officers union. He knew in grade school he wanted to be an attorney when he grew up.
"As a good Irish Catholic boy, the first possibility was to be a priest," O'Mara said. "The second one was to be a lawyer."
He attended college at University of Central Florida and law school at Florida State. Married with no children, his hobbies include training German shepherds, boating and photography.
As a defense attorney, O'Mara said he sees himself as the "front line" in protecting civil liberties.
"People harass criminal defense attorneys some time, but it's like going to a dentist — you never really want to go to one but you want them there when you need one," O'Mara said. "Not to sound too uppity about it, but we're the ones who really make sure the rest of us can enjoy the liberties that the Constitution guarantees, and that it's done right if it's going to be done at all."
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-attorney-casey-anthony-commentator-201549716.html
|
Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
|
On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact.
I remember them dissecting that on the news and they came to the conclusion that they could not be sure what was said. I wouldn't call that 100% fact.
Zimm has definitely lost a lot of weight over the last month or so...
|
On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact.
i've been debating how to respond to your incredibly hostile and ignorant post. i decided i will try to take the high road.
yes, i have listened to the tapes--multiple times. i have also read all of the news reports and listened to all of the "enhanced" audio tapes discussing whether it says punks or coons. i am also the person who wrote the OP, so you shouldn't assume that i have never done something as simple as listen to the tapes. to me, it sounds like "fucking cones;" it doesnt sound like "coons" or "punks" to me. however, reasonable minds may differ.
as for your 100% fact, i find that laughable. lets assume that it was 100% fact. why would the state attorney's office not point out that issue to the court in their affidavit charging him with second degree murder? is it their ace up their sleeves? are they afraid that if they overuse it then it wont have a high jury impact? no. they don't believe he said "fucking coons" as they specifically refer to it as "these fucking punks."
|
He said 'fucking cold' according to CNN.
|
i think if he goes before a jury the and finds him quilty i bet it will be 2 years parole or something.
|
On April 13 2012 06:48 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
He said 'fucking cold' according to CNN.
+ Show Spoiler +
yes, CNN changed their mind. they originally said it was "coons," and then they backed off and said it was "cold." presumably because they used a different audio expert.
|
On April 13 2012 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:48 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
He said 'fucking cold' according to CNN. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJLA9vr97qw yes, CNN changed their mind. they originally said it was "coons," and then they backed off and said it was "cold." presumably because they used a different audio expert.
lol US media is indeed a joke... I thought it was bad here.
First putting things out of proportion and emphasizing on certain stuff to make a nice simple case which everybody can understand easily and now step by step backing off... just WTF.
This case is doomed this way or another.
//edit: what was that on the daily shows a couple days ago where they showed how ?NBC? cut the tape so it makes GZ seem a racist? I think cutting out the question what race the suspicious individual was or something along those lines.
|
On April 13 2012 07:02 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 06:48 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
He said 'fucking cold' according to CNN. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJLA9vr97qw yes, CNN changed their mind. they originally said it was "coons," and then they backed off and said it was "cold." presumably because they used a different audio expert. lol US media is indeed a joke... I thought it was bad here. First putting things out of proportion and emphasizing on certain stuff to make a nice simple case which everybody can understand easily and now step by step backing off... just WTF. This case is doomed this way or another. //edit: what was that on the daily shows a couple days ago where they showed how ?NBC? cut the tape so it makes GZ seem a racist? I think cutting out the question what race the suspicious individual was or something along those lines.
NBC fires producer over edited Zimmerman 911 call
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/nbc-fires-producer-over-edited-zimmerman-911-call-201124740.html
|
I think they're overshooting with a second-degree murder charge, I can't see all those conditions being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
1. (Victim) is dead.
Yep.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
Yep.
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Here's where I have serious doubts they can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, unless something comes out during the trial that proves Zimmerman was the one who attacked first. Shooting someone who is on top of you wailing on you does not demonstrate 'a depraved mind without regard for human life', even if you can argue that he shouldn't have followed in the first place.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
Yep.
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
Again, extremely difficult to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Really can't see this.
Is it possible that Zimmerman did satisfy all those conditions (i.e. he chased Martin with the intention to shoot him, 'without regard for human life' and his act was 'depraved')? Yeah, it is. I just can't see it being provable beyond a reasonable doubt in court, unless there's some new info that comes out during the trial, or the ambiguity of conflicting witness reports gets cleared in Martin's favor.
|
On April 13 2012 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact. ito me, it sounds like "fucking cones;"
This seems highly irregular. Why would anyone say, "Fucking cones"? I just listened to this clip on loop for awhile.
Cones wouldn't make any sense and my experience pronouncing words in general leads me to believe that when you say the word 'cone' you generally opt for the hard 'O' sound. You don't pronounce it 'cune'.
It also certainly wasn't "goons" unless one pronounces the letter 'g' much like one pronounces a 'k'.
It also certainly wasn't "colds" because the word was pluralized and again, colds isn't a word and would be a highly irregular thing to say when you're chasing someone with a gun. I would hope that when you're in pursuit of another person the weather isn't on the top of your priority. Furthermore, no 'l' or 'd' were pronounced in the word.
So you're correct, he did not say coons. He said kunes. Which conveniently isn't a word and is clearly jibberish.
I feel that people aren't actually looking much into it / using it to distract people for awhile because it doesn't actually matter what he said. People say stupid shit all the time. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if he said coons or not because it wouldn't matter if trayvon was white or asian--in that moment, he was expressing distrust / anger towards that person, not that person's ethnicity which is an entirely different subject. Regardless of race, Trayvon was going to die that night, and analyzing a small tidbit of information isn't going to open up this well of motivation that wasn't there before. The whole matter is very simple.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon with a gun, Trayvon felt his life was in danger (because there's a guy behind him with a gun drawn), then Zimmerman felt his life was in danger because he was following someone with a gun(?), then Trayvon died. But if it was Zimmerman that would have died for stupidly pursuing someone with a firearm that night, this wouldn't have been an issue because he threatened someone with a gun and that person fought back.
I mean, that's fairly logical right? I don't think that idea is that far fetched, if Zimmerman died, Trayvon would be unquestionably in the clear because he was being chased by someone who had a firearm.
I mean shit, I'm afraid of people with hoods walking around in my neighborhood when we're the only two people on the street because a guy was robbing people with a hammer one time. I'm apprehensive as fuck, but if someone had a gun? I'd be -out of there- or if I was convinced I couldn't get away -set up an ambush-.
|
On April 13 2012 07:16 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact. ito me, it sounds like "fucking cones;" This seems highly irregular. Why would anyone say, "Fucking cones"? I just listened to this clip on loop for awhile. Cones wouldn't make any sense and my experience pronouncing words in general leads me to believe that when you say the word 'cone' you generally opt for the hard 'O' sound. You don't pronounce it 'cune'. It also certainly wasn't "goons" unless one pronounces the letter 'g' much like one pronounces a 'k'. It also certainly wasn't "colds" because the word was pluralized and again, colds isn't a word and would be a highly irregular thing to say when you're chasing someone with a gun. I would hope that when you're in pursuit of another person the weather isn't on the top of your priority. Furthermore, no 'l' or 'd' were pronounced in the word. So you're correct, he did not say coons. He said kunes. Which conveniently isn't a word and is clearly jibberish. I feel that people aren't actually looking much into it / using it to distract people for awhile because it doesn't actually matter what he said. People say stupid shit all the time. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if he said coons or not because it wouldn't matter if trayvon was white or asian--in that moment, he was expressing distrust / anger towards that person, not that person's ethnicity which is an entirely different subject. Regardless of race, Trayvon was going to die that night, and analyzing a small tidbit of information isn't going to open up this well of motivation that wasn't there before. The whole matter is very simple. Zimmerman followed Trayvon with a gun, Trayvon felt his life was in danger (because there's a guy behind him with a gun drawn), then Zimmerman felt his life was in danger because he was following someone with a gun(?), then Trayvon died. But if it was Zimmerman that would have died for stupidly pursuing someone with a firearm that night, this wouldn't have been an issue because he threatened someone with a gun and that person fought back. I mean, that's fairly logical right? I don't think that idea is that far fetched, if Zimmerman died, Trayvon would be unquestionably in the clear because he was being chased by someone who had a firearm. I mean shit, I'm afraid of people with hoods walking around in my neighborhood when we're the only two people on the street because a guy was robbing people with a hammer one time. I'm apprehensive as fuck, but if someone had a gun? I'd be -out of there- or if I was convinced I couldn't get away -set up an ambush-.
i said it sounds like "cones" to me, i didnt say it was actually cones. the audio quality is so poor i think saying it was one thing or another is ridiculous. two CNN enhancements came up with completely different results: "coons" and "cold." shows how great that technology is.
i dont know why you feel that "Trayvon was going to die that night," nor do i agree that "[t]he whole matter is very simple."
|
I suppose we can disagree on what Zimmerman exactly said, but it sounds pretty clear to me he said "coons". The hard "k", the "n" and the "s" sounds are very evident due to the nature of their distinctive sounds, but the "oo" sound is difficult to parce out. However, you can say in contrast that it's not a hard vowel sound ("Ae" "Ee" "Eye" "Oh") since those are very distinct. That leaves "kahns", "kens", "kins", "coons", "kyns", none of which make sense except for .. well "coons".
|
I haven't been following this case as closely as most but isn't a charge of murder 2 a stretch? I mean it seems like a sensational, news header charge that they have to know full well won't stick..
so then I have to ask (as a law laymen)
Did they only charge him with Murder 2 so they could claim that they really tried to stick it to him since the case has exploded across the nation? But in reality it will likely be:
1) Zimmeran pleas to something way lesser
2) They don't get the Murder 2 charge but can still claim they 'tried hard' to get the max for zimmeran because of how politicized and extreme this case has become.
Anyone have some insight on why on earth they'd try for murder 2?
|
On April 13 2012 07:43 crms wrote:
I haven't been following this case as closely as most but isn't a charge of murder 2 a stretch? I mean it seems like a sensational, news header charge that they have to know full well won't stick..
so then I have to ask (as a law laymen)
Did they only charge him with Murder 2 so they could claim that they really tried to stick it to him since the case has exploded across the nation? But in reality it will likely be:
1) Zimmeran pleas to something way lesser
2) They don't get the Murder 2 charge but can still claim they 'tried hard' to get the max for zimmeran because of how politicized and extreme this case has become.
Anyone have some insight on why on earth they'd try for murder 2?
even if they lose on 2nd degree murder, zimmerman can still be convicted of manslaughter. its a typical ploy by prosecutors: overcharge and if the jury wants to split the baby, they will convict on the lesser offense (which is what he should have been charged with in the first place).
it can backfire though if the jury thinks that the prosecutor is being overaggressive and overcharging.
|
On April 13 2012 07:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 07:16 Kich wrote:On April 13 2012 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact. ito me, it sounds like "fucking cones;" This seems highly irregular. Why would anyone say, "Fucking cones"? I just listened to this clip on loop for awhile. Cones wouldn't make any sense and my experience pronouncing words in general leads me to believe that when you say the word 'cone' you generally opt for the hard 'O' sound. You don't pronounce it 'cune'. It also certainly wasn't "goons" unless one pronounces the letter 'g' much like one pronounces a 'k'. It also certainly wasn't "colds" because the word was pluralized and again, colds isn't a word and would be a highly irregular thing to say when you're chasing someone with a gun. I would hope that when you're in pursuit of another person the weather isn't on the top of your priority. Furthermore, no 'l' or 'd' were pronounced in the word. So you're correct, he did not say coons. He said kunes. Which conveniently isn't a word and is clearly jibberish. I feel that people aren't actually looking much into it / using it to distract people for awhile because it doesn't actually matter what he said. People say stupid shit all the time. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if he said coons or not because it wouldn't matter if trayvon was white or asian--in that moment, he was expressing distrust / anger towards that person, not that person's ethnicity which is an entirely different subject. Regardless of race, Trayvon was going to die that night, and analyzing a small tidbit of information isn't going to open up this well of motivation that wasn't there before. The whole matter is very simple. Zimmerman followed Trayvon with a gun, Trayvon felt his life was in danger (because there's a guy behind him with a gun drawn), then Zimmerman felt his life was in danger because he was following someone with a gun(?), then Trayvon died. But if it was Zimmerman that would have died for stupidly pursuing someone with a firearm that night, this wouldn't have been an issue because he threatened someone with a gun and that person fought back. I mean, that's fairly logical right? I don't think that idea is that far fetched, if Zimmerman died, Trayvon would be unquestionably in the clear because he was being chased by someone who had a firearm. I mean shit, I'm afraid of people with hoods walking around in my neighborhood when we're the only two people on the street because a guy was robbing people with a hammer one time. I'm apprehensive as fuck, but if someone had a gun? I'd be -out of there- or if I was convinced I couldn't get away -set up an ambush-. i said it sounds like "cones" to me, i didnt say it was actually cones. the audio quality is so poor i think saying it was one thing or another is ridiculous. two CNN enhancements came up with completely different results: "coons" and "cold." shows how great that technology is. i dont know why you feel that "Trayvon was going to die that night," nor do i agree that "[t]he whole matter is very simple."
I feel that because saying otherwise is tantamount to saying it was a racially motivated act, which it wasn't. The whole matter is very simple. The actions of an individual, against all standard logic, reason, and even orders from law enforcement due to zealotry of a cause resulted in the death of a young man.
There aren't actually that many unknowns that are relevant about the case. Most of them are side-theorists looking to justify an otherwise pointless point of view.
|
On April 13 2012 07:49 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 07:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 07:16 Kich wrote:On April 13 2012 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 06:34 Tryndamere wrote:On April 13 2012 06:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 13 2012 03:51 happyft wrote:On April 13 2012 03:21 sevencck wrote:Here we have a defense that logically invalidates itself. If you're going to claim Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, then I don't see how you can deny that right to Trayvon. Here we have an aggressive armed man following an unarmed teenager around a dark street at night for reasons that would not have been apparent to Trayvon. It is unclear exactly how the situation escalated, but what is clear is that if Zimmerman can claim self defense, then Trayvon most certainly could have. If Trayvon felt his life was being threatened he had the right to defend himself, even if it would have been unwise. You have to deny Trayvon the right to defend himself to hold him up as an aggressor, which is illogical if you believe in the right to self defense to the extent that it validates a killing like this. Both of these men can't claim to be acting in the interest of self preservation, one of them is the aggressor. It is illogical to hold up the actions of a man seeking an armed confrontation for no apparent reason and then shooting and killing an unarmed teenager as self defense by misrepresenting Trayvon as the aggressor, and in doing so denying Trayvon that same right to self defense. And that's even assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which is a dubious claim in and of itself. On April 12 2012 23:11 RCMDVA wrote:
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Arming yourself with a lethal weapon and pursuing someone, who is not actually doing anything wrong, with the intent of instigating a potentially deadly confrontation is an imminently dangerous act that shows very little regard for human life. Doing so because you believe black people are guilty by virtue of being black demonstrates a depraved mind. Instigating a potentially deadly confrontation with a lethal weapon against someone that in your depravity you believe to be dangerous (and are therefore ready to shoot), killing him after you've likely given him little option but to attempt to defend himself, ignoring his rightful claim to defend himself, and subsequently claiming you were acting in the interests of self preservation demonstrates a depraved mind. People acting in the interests of self preservation do not precipitate armed conflicts. And even with that, that's still assuming Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, which may not even have been the case. Agreed as well. In addition, I think the mortician's analysis will probably serve as strong evidence to support the prosecution. If I recall correctly, he said there were none of the typical marks of a struggle or fight on Martin's body, and no marks on his hands or fists, which highly suggests he was not an aggressor in anyway. Also, I'm hoping a forensics team can get an idea of where the bullet was fired, where it impacted, and the distance at which Martin's body received the bullet judging from bullet impact. If it can be proven it was shot at a distance of at least a few feet, that would also point against Zimmerman's story. I'm not sure the audio samples will be all that useful, except to go against Zimmerman's claim that he was the one shouting, since if there are no audio samples of Martin, they can't show it was Martin screaming. And I'd really wish the whole issue of race was kept separate (Zimmerman allegedly whispering "fucking coons" which I believe it is pretty clear he did say). What we need is to establish the facts first, discussing the whole race issue could potential obfuscate everything. Of course we can't avoid the issue, and it certainly should be investigated as a motive, but man ... things just get so ugly with that. i just want to point out that the state attorney's office says that he said "fucking punks" not "fucking coons." I just watched it and even though it was said "fucking punks"on the affidavit but if you have ever listened to the damn tape, you would know that Zimmerman said "fucking punks" and "fucking coons". The "fucking coon's part was hard to hear and it was by itself. If you are trying to deny that was ever being said, then so be it. But it was on the tape, 100% fact. ito me, it sounds like "fucking cones;" This seems highly irregular. Why would anyone say, "Fucking cones"? I just listened to this clip on loop for awhile. Cones wouldn't make any sense and my experience pronouncing words in general leads me to believe that when you say the word 'cone' you generally opt for the hard 'O' sound. You don't pronounce it 'cune'. It also certainly wasn't "goons" unless one pronounces the letter 'g' much like one pronounces a 'k'. It also certainly wasn't "colds" because the word was pluralized and again, colds isn't a word and would be a highly irregular thing to say when you're chasing someone with a gun. I would hope that when you're in pursuit of another person the weather isn't on the top of your priority. Furthermore, no 'l' or 'd' were pronounced in the word. So you're correct, he did not say coons. He said kunes. Which conveniently isn't a word and is clearly jibberish. I feel that people aren't actually looking much into it / using it to distract people for awhile because it doesn't actually matter what he said. People say stupid shit all the time. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter if he said coons or not because it wouldn't matter if trayvon was white or asian--in that moment, he was expressing distrust / anger towards that person, not that person's ethnicity which is an entirely different subject. Regardless of race, Trayvon was going to die that night, and analyzing a small tidbit of information isn't going to open up this well of motivation that wasn't there before. The whole matter is very simple. Zimmerman followed Trayvon with a gun, Trayvon felt his life was in danger (because there's a guy behind him with a gun drawn), then Zimmerman felt his life was in danger because he was following someone with a gun(?), then Trayvon died. But if it was Zimmerman that would have died for stupidly pursuing someone with a firearm that night, this wouldn't have been an issue because he threatened someone with a gun and that person fought back. I mean, that's fairly logical right? I don't think that idea is that far fetched, if Zimmerman died, Trayvon would be unquestionably in the clear because he was being chased by someone who had a firearm. I mean shit, I'm afraid of people with hoods walking around in my neighborhood when we're the only two people on the street because a guy was robbing people with a hammer one time. I'm apprehensive as fuck, but if someone had a gun? I'd be -out of there- or if I was convinced I couldn't get away -set up an ambush-. i said it sounds like "cones" to me, i didnt say it was actually cones. the audio quality is so poor i think saying it was one thing or another is ridiculous. two CNN enhancements came up with completely different results: "coons" and "cold." shows how great that technology is. i dont know why you feel that "Trayvon was going to die that night," nor do i agree that "[t]he whole matter is very simple." I feel that because saying otherwise is tantamount to saying it was a racially motivated act, which it wasn't. The whole matter is very simple. The actions of an individual, against all standard logic, reason, and even orders from law enforcement due to zealotry of a cause resulted in the death of a young man. There aren't actually that many unknowns that are relevant about the case. Most of them are side-theorists looking to justify an otherwise pointless point of view.
please look up "but for cause" and "proximate cause." they are legal terms you seem to be confusing with each other.
|
On April 13 2012 06:41 meadbert wrote:
Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
I understand what you guys are saying now and I apologize for any confusion. You're not denying that Zimmerman armed himself and followed Trayvon, you're merely denying that that constitutes a confrontation, saying that the ensuing confrontation may not have been Zimmerman's intent and arguing my points on that basis.
I should clarify. This is a reasonable point to make, but I disagree with it. First of all, in my opinion this is highly confrontational behavior. Yes, you're right to argue that following someone is not a crime, but it's contextual isn't it? I'll remind you that the definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all ramifications and limitations of that definition though, but it's worth mention. Perhaps dAPhREAk can clarify.
You can say I wasn't there to witness what happened, but the fact is there is a record of Trayvon's phonecall with his girlfriend describing the situation, worried about being followed, and basically apprehending violence. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, it was making Trayvon afraid. In other words, it wasn't just simple "following." If your behavior is obviously causing someone distress and making them fearful for their safety, then you can't write this off as non aggressive or non confrontational behavior and that Zimmerman was merely "following" Treyvon and it was no problem. Treyvon turned and asked Zimmerman why he was following him moments before being shot.
If you're behaving in a way that is making someone afraid for their life, and likely to respond defensively then your behavior is inappropriate, particularly when that person hasn't been caught doing anything wrong. It is also not appropriate to subsequently blame the "confrontation" on the other person. Further, you can't play the deer in headlights when said behavior prompts the other person to defend themselves. Stupidity is not a defense. The fact that Zimmerman was armed and ready to shoot makes his behavior even more irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
